JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a Regular Second Appeal field by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, dated 1.8.2003, vide which the learned District Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, dated 27.2.2003, vide which he had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for partition etc. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’, filed a suit for partition of the residential house, saw mill, flour mill/Chakki, Kharad machine and spinning machine. It was alleged by the plaintiff that one Shiv Ram was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 237/185/34 and the shops and residential house constructed thereon. It was alleged that two shops had been constructed by Shiv Ram and he had also installed saw mill, flour mill/Chakki, Kharad machine and spinning machine in the above mentioned shops. The said Shiv Ram died leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs, being his widow, son and daughters. It was alleged that the defendants are daughters from his deceased wife Santi and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are his children from plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Bimla. Mutation of inheritance of the said property was attested in favour of the parties by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade on 23.4.1994 qua the suit land, shops and house. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 3/5 shares out of the total 6 shares in the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land is joint in between the parties and has not been partitioned so far. Hence, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs. 3. Defendant No.1 took up preliminary submissions in regard to estopple, locus-standi etc. On merits, it was admitted that the land is recorded in the ownership of Shiv Ram, who had constructed one house and installed machines etc. It was further alleged that plaintiff No. 1 got mutation No. 201 entered behind the back of defendant No. 1 by getting her name incorporated wrongly without notice to the defendants. The said mutation was wrong and is not binding upon the defendants. It was further alleged that plaintiff No. 1 got mutation No. 201 entered behind the back of defendant No. 1 by getting her name incorporated wrongly without notice to the defendants. The said mutation was wrong and is not binding upon the defendants. It was alleged that on the death of Shiv Ram, the defendants and their mother Shanti succeeded him in equal shares and thereafter, Shanti also expired and defendants succeeded her in equal shares. The defendants have allegedly made improvements in the structure and no marriage took place in between plaintiff No. 1 and deceased Shiv Ram and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were not born from the loins of deceased Shiv Ram. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased and since the mutation was wrongly attested, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit land. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners of the suit property and plaintiffs are entitled to their share by way of partition? …. OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? … OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi? … OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as alleged? … OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? … OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? … OPD 7. Relief. 5. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment decided Issue No. 1 as against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants and other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendants. 6. On appeal those findings were affirmed by the learned District Judge. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that there has been complete misreading of evidence oral as well as documentary by the Courts below and as such, those findings are liable to be reversed. It was submitted that there has been misinterpretation of mutation No. 201, vide which the appellants were held entitled for partition of the property being the legal heirs of late Shiv Ram. It was submitted that there has been misinterpretation of mutation No. 201, vide which the appellants were held entitled for partition of the property being the legal heirs of late Shiv Ram. It was also submitted that the learned Appellate Court has not discussed the evidence nor given any reasons for concurring with the findings of the learned trial Court, which findings are, therefore, liable to be set aside. It was submitted that neither the respondents challenged the mutation nor filed any counter claim before the learned trial Court and as such also, the appeal is liable to be accepted. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgments for the reasons given therein. 10. The appeal in question was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and first appellate Court are dehors the evidence on record and on consideration of inadmissible evidence?” 11. Coming to the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs to prove that plaintiff No. 1 was the legally wedded wife of deceased Shiv Ram and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were the children of Shiv Ram and Bimla. There is scanty evidence on record to prove this fact. The main thing relied upon by the plaintiffs is mutation No. 201, attested on 23.4.1994 in favour of both the parties. 12. It is true that mutation was attested in favour of both the parties, but that does not establish the fact that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Shiv Ram. A specific issue had been framed as to whether the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners of the suit property and the question was raised regarding the marriage of Shiv Ram with plaintiff No. 1 and that plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were the children of deceased. The evidence had to be led by the plaintiffs to prove the issue. The mere fact that there is mutation in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants jointly in regard to the property of Shiv Ram is not a proof of the fact that the plaintiffs are also the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned District Judge had referred to the mutation and had concluded that the presence of the defendants was not marked in the said mutation. The learned District Judge had referred to the mutation and had concluded that the presence of the defendants was not marked in the said mutation. In case, the mutation is attested, it does not confer any title on the plaintiffs and once the mutation was attested in favour of both the parties, the plaintiffs cannot take any benefit out of it. It is true that the defendants on coming to know of the mutation, should have challenged it at the earliest, but the mere fact that it was not challenged does not prove the plaintiffs to be the legal heirs of the deceased. 13. Coming to the evidence, the learned trial Court has referred in detail to the evidence under Issue No. 1. PW-1 Bimla Devi has stated that she came to the house of deceased Shiv Ram and thereafter plaintiff No. 2 Yash Pal was born after one year. However, she has not produced any birth entry in regard to the birth of plaintiffs No. 2 to 4. It is admitted fact on record that the plaintiff No. 1 was brought to the house by Shiv Ram when his wife Smt. Santi was alive and she died after the death of Shiv Ram. Therefore, plaintiff No. 1 cannot be said to be the widow of Shiv Ram, who was already having living wife and the marriage in question was also not proved on record. PW-7 Kiru Ram, brother of the deceased, has deposed that plaintiff Bimla is wife of Shiv Ram and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were born out from the loins of Shiv Ram with Bimla. He however deposed that when Bimla was brought, there was no divorce with Santi as Shiv Ram was not having any male child. The copy of daily diary Ext. D-1 dated 10.2.1994 vide which the father of deceased Shiv Ram Dharmu informed about the death of Shiv Ram. He had only mentioned the widow and daughters Shakuntla and Vidya. DW-2 Ramesh Kumar, Attorney, has stated that the deceased was survived by his widow Santi and his two daughters and the plaintiffs are not related to Shiv Ram. He stated that plaintiff No. 1 was married to Sunder Singh and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are the children of Sunder Singh. 14. DW-2 Ramesh Kumar, Attorney, has stated that the deceased was survived by his widow Santi and his two daughters and the plaintiffs are not related to Shiv Ram. He stated that plaintiff No. 1 was married to Sunder Singh and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are the children of Sunder Singh. 14. DW-3 Bala Ram has deposed that Shiv Ram was related to him as his wife and wife of Shiv Ram were real sisters. He stated that Santi was wife of Shiv Ram, who gave birth to two daughters and Shiv Ram did not contract second marriage with Bimla Devi nor any children were born to Bimla Devi from the loins of Shiv Ram. DW-4 Prem Singh, relative of Shiv Ram, has deposed that Shiv Ram was only married to Santi and two daughters were born from the loins of Shiv Ram and Santi. 15. The learned trial Court has referred to the testimony of PW-1 Bimla Devi, where she admitted that Santi was alive when she married Shiv Ram and she also admitted that defendants No. 1 and 2 are daughters of Shiv Ram from Smt. Santi. She also admitted in her cross-examination her marriage with Sunder and she lived with him at village Nai Naiti. She admitted that she had been entered at Gram Panchayat Dhamla as wife of Satya Pal. PW-7 Kiru Ram, brother of Shiv Ram, had also admitted in cross-examination that plaintiff No. 1 was not married to Shiv Ram as per Hindu rites. The said evidence had been duly discussed by the learned trial Court and it cannot be said that there was no discussion of the evidence by the learned trial Court. The evidence of the plaintiffs as well as of the defendants have been discussed in detail by the learned District Judge. 16. To substantiate his submissions that the findings of both the learned Courts below are liable to be reversed, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following decisions:- Reliance was placed upon a decision in H.K.N. Swami Vs. Irshad Basith (Dead) by LRs., (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 243, wherein it was held that the First Appellate Court is required to address itself to all the issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Irshad Basith (Dead) by LRs., (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 243, wherein it was held that the First Appellate Court is required to address itself to all the issues and decide the case by giving reasons. There were only findings under Issue No. 1 as against the appellants and those findings were duly discussed by the learned Appellate Court. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Gurdev Singh Vs. Gulaboo and others, 2000 (3) Shim. L.C. 285. In that case, the defendant had not been examined and adverse inference was drawn and the case was not proved by the defendant before the Court. The said decision is based upon the facts of that case only. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Ramji Vs. State of H.P. and others, 2008 (2) Shim. LC 60. In that case, it was observed that there was no analytical examination of evidence on record nor nay sound or cogent reasons given. Therefore, the second appeal was allowed and the case was remanded. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the decision in Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors., 2011 (1) Civil Court Cases 001 (S.C.). In the said case it was held that second appeal cannot be entertained unless a substantial question of law is involved, as the second appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of fact based on an appreciation of the relevant evidence. 18. In the present case, the appeal was not admitted on the question as to whether adverse inference could have been drawn against he defendants for not appearing in the witness box, who had appeared in the witness box through Attorney. As discussed above, once the appeal was not admitted on the substantial question of law with regard to the fact of non-examination of the defendant, cannot be considered since this ground was also not taken specifically in the grounds of appeal. In view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to prove the marriage in between the deceased Shiv Ram and plaintiff No. 1 and there are no entries in the Panchayat record that the plaintiff No. 1 or plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were got entered at any time in the Panchayat record as wife and children of the deceased. Once both the Courts below have discussed the evidence and come to a conclusion, though it may erroneous to some extent, but it cannot be said to be a ground to hold that the findings of the Courts below are liable to be reversed. 19. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants, which is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.