Judgment Surinder Singh, J. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.174 of 1992 decided on 30.11.2002, whereby the dismissal of their suit was upheld. 2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) When the Lower Appellate Court permitted the plaintiff-appellants to lead additional evidence has not the Lower Appellate Court acted in an erroneous and perverse manner in not discussing and taking into consideration such additional evidence to test the correctness of the findings of the Trial Court on Issue No.1? (2) Whether both the Courts below have acted beyond their jurisdiction in putting reliance on the revenue entries which were shown prima facie to be illegal and unauthorized? Are not findings returned by both the Courts below, which are based on revenue entries only, presumption to which stood rebutted, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellants? Have not both the Courts below ignored the provisions of H.P. Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, H.P. Settlement Mannual and H. P. Land Records Manual? Was not it incumbent for the defendant-respondent to prove the substitution of entry of tenancy in his favour, to be lawfully substituted? 3. When the plaintiff proved that the land was under mortgage at the period when the defendant is claimed to have been inducted as tenant in the absence of pleadings and proof of the defendant-respondent as to whether he was inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee or the land owner, was it not beyond the competence of both the Courts below to have upheld the claim of the defendant-respondent without legally examining the material to sustain such claim? 4. Whether both the Courts below have committed grave illegality and acted beyond their jurisdiction in not taking into consideration the relevant facts, particularly the revocation of the earlier consolidation proceedings, wherein the entry of the defendant-respondent appeared in the Khasra Girdawari only, which is not permitted under law? 4. Whether both the Courts below have committed grave illegality and acted beyond their jurisdiction in not taking into consideration the relevant facts, particularly the revocation of the earlier consolidation proceedings, wherein the entry of the defendant-respondent appeared in the Khasra Girdawari only, which is not permitted under law? If such entry was shown to be beyond the jurisdiction of the revenue officers have not both the Courts below committed grave jurisdictional illegality in relying upon the latter entries which were proved to be not incorporated by following the proper procedure as envisaged under law? 5. Whether both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the facts and the law in dismissing the claim of recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff-appellants, when the status of the defendant-respondent was appearing on the record of the case to be that of trespasser?” 3. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The appellants hereinafter to be called as ‘the plaintiffs’ claim themselves owners-in-possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.22R/18/1 min and disputed tenancy of the defendants over it being, wrong, baseless and without any authority in their plaint that the suit land was owned by them and the entries in the name of respondents/ defendant as tenant are wrong and baseless. Their further contention is that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.327/1, 328, 329, 330/1, measuring 12 Kanals 16 Marlas and the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 325, 326 and 327/2 measuring 10 Kanals 15 Marlas pertaining to the plaintiffs was mortgaged with possession in favour of Shankar Dass, Hans Raj and Bishamber Dass sons of Shri Shis Ram. During consolidation proceedings in the year 1965, the plaintiffs were allotted different land including suit khasra No.22R/16/2 measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marlas. It is alleged that during Girdawari of Rabi 1968, the defendant got himself inducted as a tenant of Khasra No.22R/16/2 in connivance with the consolidation staff, which was later on revoked by the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, thereafter it started in the year 1970. The land which was mortgaged with Shankar Dass and others was got redeemed by the plaintiffs. Its mutation was sanctioned in their favour on 4.7.1970. The land which was mortgaged with Shankar Dass and others was got redeemed by the plaintiffs. Its mutation was sanctioned in their favour on 4.7.1970. When consolidation proceedings were again taken up in the village, the land measuring 13 Kanal 17 Marlas bearing Khewat No.207, Khata Khatauni No.207/466 min and Khasra Nos.22R/13/2, 17, 18/1min and 22R/18/1 was allotted in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant again in connivance with the consolidation staff got his name entered in Khasra Nos.22R/18/1 as tenant. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that they are continuing in possession of the suit land after its redemption, but the entries contrary to it in favour of the defendant are wrong and illegal, thus sought declaration to this effect being illegal, unauthorized and in-effective with consequential relief of injunction, in alternative for possession. 4. The defendant offered strong resistance to the suit and claimed his tenancy for more than 20 years old and also pleaded that he has become owner of the suit land by virtue of coming into force the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The valuation, jurisdiction and maintainable of the suit has been disputed by taking preliminary objections. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as alleged? …OPP 2. Whether the suit is within time? …OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from instituting the suit by their act and conduct? …OPD 4. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? …OPP 5. Relief. 6. The parties led their evidence and on the conclusion of the trial, all the above issues were decided against the plaintiffs, on the grounds that the copies of Jamabandies Exts.D2 to D4 w.e.f. 1971-72 to 1978-79 reflected the defendant as a non-occupancy tenant qua the suit land. The plaintiffs claimed that this land with other land was mortgaged with Shankar Dass and others which according to PW1 Lekh Ram was redeemed in the year 1970. The plaintiffs claimed that this land with other land was mortgaged with Shankar Dass and others which according to PW1 Lekh Ram was redeemed in the year 1970. He admitted that earlier it was owned by the defendant but it came to the plaintiffs by allotment in consolidation except his own version and that of PW2 it was not supportable by any authenticated record, whereas defendant claimed tenancy under plaintiffs and he so supports by his own version and statements of other DWs plus the revenue record lends support to it. The trial Court observed that PW1 Lekh Ram remained Patwari w.e.f. 1945 to 1971 in the same Tehsil. According to him, the possession is entered during consolidation after ascertaining the position on the spot and there is no evidence record mortgage of suit khasra, even if it is admitted to be so, after redemption the defendant remained in possession and his entries continued as a tenant without any objection and was allowed to exist in subsequent Jamabandies, which caries presumption of truth, which could not be rebutted. Further, that the plaintiffs failed to establish that khasra No.22R/16/2 was different from khasra No.22R/16/1, whereas area is the same, thus it was suit khasra earlier depicted as 22R/16/2. Even on the correction application of Lekh Ram vide order Ext.D6, the revenue officer ordered to get the question of title settled from the civil court. Thus, there was basis to record the defendant as tenant in Rabi, 1968, which according to plaintiff Lekh Ram, was done by consolidation staff to which they do after proper verification. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The first appellate Court framed following additional issues:- 4(a). Whether the defendant has been in possession of the suit land as tenant for the last more than 20 years and has become owner by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act? …OPP. 4(b). Whether defendant was re-allotted the land in dispute in lieu of the land which was in his possession as tenant, if so, its effect? …OPD. 7. After framing additional issues, the First Appellate Court remanded the case for fresh decision after giving the parties opportunities to lead additional evidence on the newly framed issues. …OPP. 4(b). Whether defendant was re-allotted the land in dispute in lieu of the land which was in his possession as tenant, if so, its effect? …OPD. 7. After framing additional issues, the First Appellate Court remanded the case for fresh decision after giving the parties opportunities to lead additional evidence on the newly framed issues. The wholesale remand of this case was set-aside by this Court on 16.7.2002 in an appeal preferred by the defendant and the case was returned to the first Appellant Court for deciding the additional issues also alongwith appeal after giving opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence thereon. 8. Thereafter, the plaintiffs placed on record certified copy of the extract of original Roznamcha Partal Exts.PW3/A to E and copy of the extract of consolidation proceedings Ext.PW3/F. 9. After going through the entire evidence in the light of the additional evidence, learned First Appellate Court un-hesitantly held that the defendant was in possession of suit khasra as tenant of the suit land at least since year 1968 and has become owner by virtue of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the contention of the plaintiffs that they were owners-in-possession was absolutely wrong, as such the appeal was dismissed, hence the present appeal. 10. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate vehemently argued that both the Courts below have given mechanical findings upholding the defendant in possession in absence of induction as a tenant by the land owners. It is also argued that the additional issues were not considered at all to test the correctness of the findings of the learned trial Court and that both the Courts below have ignored the relevant law on point and have misread and misinterpreted the additional evidence on record, which has resulted into the incorrect findings. The learned counsel further argued that the findings of tenancy in favour of the defendant are without any basis, but in his opinion, above submissions are not correct for the reasons referred here-in-after. 11. The learned counsel further argued that the findings of tenancy in favour of the defendant are without any basis, but in his opinion, above submissions are not correct for the reasons referred here-in-after. 11. Contra, Shri N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Shri Inder Sharma, Advocate argued that there have been long standing entries in favour of the defendant qua tenancy and one of the plaintiffs Shri Lekh Ram (PW1) remained as Patwari in the same area/ Tehsil, he was aware of entries of the defendant in revenue record, therefore, now at such a belated stage, the plaintiffs cannot lay any challenge to it whereas there is a concurrent findings of facts of both the courts below based on evidence, thus no interference is called for as no substantial question of law arises. It is also argued that the learned first Appellate Court has properly appreciated the additional evidence in the light of other evidence on record. Hence, the entries in favour of the defendant were correct and duly incorporated in the Jamabandi. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record of the Courts below. 13. As a matter of fact, the suit land was recorded in the ownership of the plaintiffs. Their case is that the defendant got himself wrongly recorded as a tenant in connivance with the consolidation staff. Admittedly, the suit land was recorded in cultivating possession of defendant in Kharif 1968 as shown in Khasra Girdawari Ext.D-1, which was subsequently incorporated in Jamabandi Ext.D-2 for the years 1971-72 followed by Jamabandi Ext.D-3 for the year 1973-74 as non-occupancy tenant and then in Ext.D-4 for the year 1978-79. In settlement Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, thereafter the same entry was repeated in Ext.D-5, right from the very beginning, i.e. since Rabi 1968. These entries remained unchallenged. There is consistency in the entry of tenancy in favour of the defendant against payment of rent. The learned First Appellate Court thus rightly observed that in between there was consolidation and settlement proceedings and during these proceedings, at least once the correctness of entries is certainly verified by these authorities. I also did not find any entry in between contrary to it. The learned First Appellate Court thus rightly observed that in between there was consolidation and settlement proceedings and during these proceedings, at least once the correctness of entries is certainly verified by these authorities. I also did not find any entry in between contrary to it. Otherwise also, when the final jamabandi is prepared, its Partal is made by the Revenue Officer in ‘Jalsa-aam’ in the presence of land owners but no such error, if any was pointed out by the plaintiffs especially by Shri Lekh Ram (PW1) who had been Patwari and according to him, he was looking after the entire land owned by the plaintiffs. Surprisingly, nobody had objected to the status of the defendant qua the suit land as a tenant. The defendant was noticed and recorded as a tenant after verification of spot position, as per Girdwari Ext.D1 followed by continuous successive entries, which was never challenged by the plaintiffs till the filing of the present suit, in the year 1988. 14. As stated above, PW1 Lekh Ram is not a layman. He was Patwari in the Revenue Department w.e.f. 1945 to 1971 in the same Tehsil. The settlement proceedings also started during his service period. He even admitted that they have also been recording the possession of the land of the persons who after its measurement were found in possession. The story of mortgage as propounded by the plaintiffs qua the suit land is not substantiated by any supportable revenue record. The ownership column or of possession in the Girdawari for the year 1968 Ext.D-1 qua the suit land does not depict Shankar Dass as mortgagee of the land. The additional evidence produced on record before the learned District Judge does not improve the case of the plaintiffs in any manner for the aforesaid reasons. Though the earlier consolidation proceedings were revoked but fact remains the defendant was found in possession of the suit land. His possession was confirmed in the next subsequent Jamabandi followed by other Jamabandies subsequent thereto. I see no reason to differ with observation of the first appellate Court taking note of the explanation of Assistant Collector that the plaintiffs might be taking benefit of absence of permanent boundaries between the land, therefore, he even referred to change the entries in favour of the plaintiffs. Further the additional evidence i.e. Roznamcha Partal dated 23.11.1968, 3.11.1968 and 8.9.1971 etc. Further the additional evidence i.e. Roznamcha Partal dated 23.11.1968, 3.11.1968 and 8.9.1971 etc. does not serve the purpose against the above background. 15. Therefore, In my opinion, the Courts below did not misread and misinterpret the facts and law in dismissing for the prayer of injunction and alternatively for possession and the first appellate Court has rightly discussed and appreciated the additional evidence, the entry of the defendant as tenant is not proved to be unlawful as alleged. I do not find any breach of the provisions of Settlement Law and Manual. The alleged mortgage and its redemption has no effect on tenancy, thus committed no error of jurisdiction. The substantial question of law stands accordingly answered. 16. No other points is urged or pressed before me. 17. For the afore-stated reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 18. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, interim order dated 21.3.2003/16.9.2003 passed by this Court in CMP No.143 of 2003 stands vacated.