JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge Hamirpur H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 26/95 (RBT) No. 133 of 2002 titled Bakshi Ram vs. Indri Devi and others and against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 96/89 titled Bakshi Ram vs. Indri Devi and others. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Shri Bakshi Ram plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and in alternative relief of possession pleaded therein that plaintiff is tenant over 2/3rd share of land comprised in Khata No. 23 Khatauni No. 23 Khasra Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 and Khata No. 23 Khatauni No. 25 Khasra Nos. 5, 18 and 19 situated in Suphan Tappa Lohdar Tehsil Barsar District Hamirpur H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85. It is pleaded that land was under the tenancy of plaintiff Bakshi Ram since long time and deceased defendant Lachhman through his LRs has no concern with suit land. It is pleaded that deceased defendant Lachhman was very aggressive and quarrelsome person and he threatened to reap the crop from the suit land forcibly sown by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff requested the deceased defendant Lachhman several time to accept and acknowledge the status of plaintiff as tenant over suit property but he did not accept the request of plaintiff. It is further pleaded that relief as sought in relief clause of plaint be granted to plaintiff. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendant pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable and plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action. It is further pleaded that suit land is joint between the parties and entry of non-occupancy tenant is wrong and contrary to law in favour of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff was wrongly entered as non-occupancy tenant upon 2/3rd share under deceased defendant Lachhman. It is pleaded that plaintiff and defendant are co-owners of suit land and further pleaded that plaintiff has only 1/3rd share on the suit land. It is pleaded that plaintiff was wrongly entered as non-occupancy tenant upon 2/3rd share under deceased defendant Lachhman. It is pleaded that plaintiff and defendant are co-owners of suit land and further pleaded that plaintiff has only 1/3rd share on the suit land. It is pleaded that deceased defendant through his LRs is in settled possession of 2/3rd share at the spot. It is pleaded that defendant has also filed a correction application before the LRO Barsar for correction of Khasra Girdawari of suit property and same was allowed by learned Land Reforms Officer vide case No. 109/92 titled Smt. Indri Devi widow of Lachhman and others vs. Shri Bakshi Ram on dated 17.7.1993 w.e.f. Kharif 1992. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. During pendency of suit sole defendant Lachhman died and his LRs brought on record. 4. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 7.9.1989:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is tenant in possession of 2/3 share of suit land as alleged? …OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? …OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in present form? ……OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? ..OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not cause of action? …..OPD 6. Whether entries in the revenue record showing plaintiff to be tenant of 2/3rd share are wrong and illegal? ….OPD. 7. Relief. 5. On dated 23.1.1995 learned trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and learned trial Court held that issues No. 3, 4 and 5 became redundant. Learned trial Court decided issue No. 6 in favour of the defendant and suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. 6. Feeling aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dated 23.1.1995 appellant Bakshi Ram preferred Civil Appeal No. 26/1995 (RBT 133/02) titled Bakshi Ram vs. Indri Devi and others and learned Additional District Judge Hamirpur (H.P.) on dated 22.2.2003 dismissed the appeal filed by Bakshi Ram. 7. Thereafter feeling aggrieved by judgments and decrees passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court appellant Bakshi Ram filed present Regular Second Appeal and Hon’ble High Court admitted present appeal on the following substantial questions of law on dated 22.4.2003:- 1. 7. Thereafter feeling aggrieved by judgments and decrees passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court appellant Bakshi Ram filed present Regular Second Appeal and Hon’ble High Court admitted present appeal on the following substantial questions of law on dated 22.4.2003:- 1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and disregard to the jamabandi entries Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 and statements of DW2 and DW3 which have vitiated the findings? 2. Whether the judgment of the Additional District Judge which was a court of fact is vitiated for not examining critically the oral and documentary evidence and is not a judgment within Order 20 Rule 5 CPC and is liable to be set aside? 3. Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated for nonconsideration of evidence and the pleas of the appellant and the judgment of the District Judge deserves to be set aside in view of the decision in AIR 2001 HP 18 ? 8. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the entire record carefully. Evidence adduced by parties 9. PW1 Bakshi Ram has stated that area of suit land is 6 kanals and 7 marlas and he is tenant over the suit land. He has stated that his father Achroo was inducted as tenant. He has stated that deceased defendant Lachhman has inducted his father Achroo as tenant. He has stated that his father Achroo died in the year 1983 and he has further stated that he used to pay rent to the deceased defendant Lachhman. He has stated that his father Achroo used to pay rent of 1/3 share of suit land to the deceased defendant Lachhman. He has stated that plaintiff is in settled possession of suit land since 1965 and he is cultivating the land. He has stated that he is Kabir Panthi by caste. He has further stated that defendant is Rajput by caste and in the year 1965 the family partition was effected. He has stated that he is not co-sharer in the suit land but is tenant over the suit property. He has stated that he personally did not pay any rent to the deceased defendant Lachhman. He has stated that there was no custom of obtaining rent receipt. He has stated that he is not co-sharer in the suit land but is tenant over the suit property. He has stated that he personally did not pay any rent to the deceased defendant Lachhman. He has stated that there was no custom of obtaining rent receipt. He has further stated that there is no eye witness of payment of rent. He has stated that his father Achroo had purchased the land in the year 1965 measuring 5 kanals. He has admitted that correction application was filed before the Land Reforms Officer. He has denied suggestion that Field Kanungo had visited the spot. He has stated that consolidation was effected in the village. He has denied suggestion that defendant is in possession of 11 kanals of land at the spot. Plaintiff tendered documents Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 in evidence and closed the evidence in affirmative. Plaintiff did not adduce any independent oral evidence in support of induction of tenancy in suit property. 9.1. DW1 Karam Singh has stated that suit land is 15 kanals and further stated that deceased defendant through his LRs is in settled possession of 10 kanals of land and plaintiff is in possession of 5 kanals of land. He has stated that contesting defendants have cultivated the land and sown wheat crop. He has stated that Land Reforms Officer has decided that 2/3rd share of land would remain in possession of contesting defendants and 1/3rd share of land would remain in possession of plaintiff. He has stated that plaintiff and his father were not inducted as tenants at any point of time. He has stated that no tenancy rent was received from the plaintiff or predecessor-in-interest at any point of time. He has denied suggestion that plaintiff is in cultivating possession of suit property and also denied suggestion that plaintiff is paying tenancy rent. He has also denied suggestion that plaintiff is in possession of entire suit property at the spot. 9.2 DW2 Kashmir Singh has stated that parties are known to him and he has seen the suit property. He has stated that contesting defendants are in possession of 10 kanals of land and plaintiff is in possession of 5 kanals of land. He has stated that he has seen the possession of parties since his childhood. 9.2 DW2 Kashmir Singh has stated that parties are known to him and he has seen the suit property. He has stated that contesting defendants are in possession of 10 kanals of land and plaintiff is in possession of 5 kanals of land. He has stated that he has seen the possession of parties since his childhood. He has stated that plaintiff is not tenant in the suit land and further stated that both plaintiff and deceased defendant through his LRs are owners of the suit property. He has stated that deceased defendant did not induct the father of plaintiff as tenant at any point of time. He has stated that Land Reforms Officer also visited the spot and further stated that at the spot Land Reforms Officer had recorded the statements of witnesses. 9.3 DW3 Bhagwan Dass has stated that parties are known to him and he has seen the suit property. He has stated that he was Up-Pardhan of Panchayat and plaintiff and defendant are residents of his Panchayat. He has stated that 10 kanals of land is in settled possession of contesting defendants and remaining land is in possession of plaintiff. He has stated that deceased defendant did not induct plaintiff’s father as tenant at any point of time and further stated that contesting defendants have sown the wheat crop upon 10 kanals of land. He has denied suggestion that plaintiff is tenant over the suit property. Defendant tendered in evidence documents Ext.D1 and Ext.D2 and closed the evidence. Plaintiff did not adduce any rebuttal evidence. Findings upon Substantial Question of law No.1 framed by Hon’ble High Court:- 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that findings of learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court are perverse and based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence i.e. jamabandi entries Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 and statements of DW2 and DW3 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the entries of jamabandi Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 and Court has also carefully perused the statements of DW2 and DW3. Document Ext.P1 is jamabandi for the year 1984-85 relating to suit property. In the ownership column of jamabandi Ext.P1 placed on record name of Bakshi Ram son of Achroo Ram has been recorded as 1/3rd share and name of Lachhman son of Nihala has been recorded as 2/3rd share. Document Ext.P1 is jamabandi for the year 1984-85 relating to suit property. In the ownership column of jamabandi Ext.P1 placed on record name of Bakshi Ram son of Achroo Ram has been recorded as 1/3rd share and name of Lachhman son of Nihala has been recorded as 2/3rd share. In cultivation column of jamabandi for the year 1984-85 it has been shown that Bakshi Ram is in cultivating possession of 1/3rd share as owner of suit property and is recorded as nonoccupancy tenant qua 2/3rd share of Lachhman. It is proved on record that suit land is joint inter se the parties and same has not been partitioned in accordance with law. Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 are the same documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 1984-85 and same entries have been recorded in both documents as mentioned above. Ext.P3 is jamabandi for the year 1973-74 and Achroo son of Kharkoo has been shown as owner of 1/3rd share in suit property and Lachhman has been shown as owner of 2/3rd share in suit property in ownership column. In possession column of Jamabandi for the year 1973-74 Achroo has been shown as non-occupancy tenant over 2/3rd share of Lachhman son of Nihala in join immovable suit property and has been shown as possession of 1/3rd share as co-sharer. It is well settled law that a person cannot acquire two status at the same time i.e. status of ownership and status of tenancy in joint immovable property. In jamabandi Ext.P3 for the year 1973-74 Achroo father of plaintiff has been shown as owner of 1/3rd share in the ownership column of suit property and Shri Lachhman has been shown as owner of 2/3rd share and in cultivation column it has been shown that Achroo Ram is in possession as tenant qua share of Lachhman. It is proved on record that suit land is joint inter se the parties. It is held that a person cannot acquire two status at the same time in joint immovable property simultaneously i.e. (1) Status of ownership (2) Status of tenancy. Right and liability of a co-owner has been defined in ruling AIR 1961 Punjab 528 titled Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and others. Operative part is quoted. (1) A coowner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it. Right and liability of a co-owner has been defined in ruling AIR 1961 Punjab 528 titled Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and others. Operative part is quoted. (1) A coowner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it. (2) Possession of the joint property by one co-owner is in the eye of law possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession. (3) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all. (4) Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint property. (5) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner. There is no order of competent authority on record in order to prove that plaintiff Bakshi Ram or Achroo Ram father of plaintiff or Kharkoo grandfather of plaintiff were ordered to be inducted as tenant under co-owner Lachhman Dass. Entries of tenancy mentioned in documents Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 are not based upon any order of competent authority of law. It is well settled law that any entry in the revenue record which is recorded without any order of competent authority of law is void abinitio. It was held in case reported in 1998(2) SLJ 1526 (H.P.) titled Lal Chand and others vs. Pala that change in revenue entries without any competent authority automatically loose legal entity. (Also see 1969 Punjab Law Journal (Apex Court of India Full Bench) titled Durga vs. Milkhi Ram. Also see 1998(1) Shimla Law Cases page 398 titled Jai Kishan and others vs. Saran Dass and others.) Hence it is held that entry of Achroo Ram as non-occupancy tenant under Lachhman is void abinitio entry because same was recorded without order of any competent authority of law in joint immovable property. It was held in case reported in 1994(1) S.L.J. 68 (SC) titled Jattu Ram vs. Hakam Singh and others that jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and they did not create any title in favour of any party. It was held in case reported in 1994(1) S.L.J. 68 (SC) titled Jattu Ram vs. Hakam Singh and others that jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and they did not create any title in favour of any party. It was held in case reported in AIR 1994 SC 227 DB titled Guru Amarjit Singh vs. Rattan Chand and others that entries in jamabandi are not proof of title. Hence it is held that jamabandis entries Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 are not helpful to the plaintiff qua tenancy in any manner and it is held that entries of jamabandis Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 did not give any status of tenant to the plaintiff. Even plaintiff did not produce any receipt of payment of rent on record and plaintiff also did not examine any independent witness in order to prove the induction of tenancy in his favour or in favour of father of the plaintiff namely Achroo or in favour of grandfather of plaintiff namely Kharkoo qua 2/3rd share of deceased Lachhman in joint immovable property. Even no document of any family partition duly signed by Lachhman placed on record. Even family partition not recorded in revenue record. Even there is no evidence on record in order to prove that family partition was sanctioned by revenue officer. It was held in case reported in 1996(1) SLJ 696 (P&H) titled Chander Bhan vs. Hari Ram and another that if family partition not sanctioned by revenue officer same could not be considered final family partition. (Also see 2009(1) SLJ (P&H) page 205 titled Milkha vs. Makhan.) 11. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in view of testimonies of DW2 and DW3 placed on record tenancy in favour of the plaintiff is proved is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of DW2 and DW3 placed on record. DW2 has stated that defendant has filed correction application before LRO because plaintiff was tenant. It is well settled law that testimony of a witness should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation. Court has perused the testimony of DW2 carefully. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of DW2 and DW3 placed on record. DW2 has stated that defendant has filed correction application before LRO because plaintiff was tenant. It is well settled law that testimony of a witness should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation. Court has perused the testimony of DW2 carefully. DW2 has specifically stated that plaintiff or his father was not inducted as tenant over the suit land at any point of time and DW2 has also stated in positive manner that no rent was paid by plaintiff to the deceased defendant at any point of time. In view of contradictory testimony of DW2 in examination in chief and cross examination it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant status of tenant to the plaintiff in present suit on the contradictory testimony of DW2 in examination in chief and in cross examination. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in view of testimony of DW3 that plaintiff was tenant over the suit land in cross examination this regular second appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has perused the testimony of DW3 carefully. It is well settled law that evidence of a witness should not be read in isolation but should be read as a whole as per Indian Evidence Act because as per Indian Evidence Act evidence is complete when examination in chief and cross examination is completely recorded. In examination in chief DW3 has specifically stated that deceased defendant was in settled possession of 10 kanals of land and he has further stated that plaintiff is in settled possession of 5 kanals of land. He has also specifically stated in examination in chief that deceased defendant did not induct any person as tenant at any point of time. DW3 has also stated in positive manner in examination in chief that deceased defendant during his life time has sown wheat crop over 10 kanals of suit land. In view of conflicting testimony of DW3 in examination in chief and cross examination it is not in the ends of justice to grant the status of tenancy to the plaintiff on the testimony of DW3 in cross examination. Hence point No.1 of substantial question of law is answered in negative against the appellant. In view of conflicting testimony of DW3 in examination in chief and cross examination it is not in the ends of justice to grant the status of tenancy to the plaintiff on the testimony of DW3 in cross examination. Hence point No.1 of substantial question of law is answered in negative against the appellant. Findings upon Substantial question of law No. 2 framed by Hon’ble High Court. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that findings of learned District Judge which was a court of fact is vitiated for not examining critically oral and documentary evidence and same is not a judgment as mentioned under Order 20 Rule 5 CPC is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has perused the judgment passed by learned first Appellate Court carefully. First appeal was filed from original decree under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and as per Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. As per Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 the judgment of appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state (1) Points for determination. (2) Decision thereon (3) Reason for decision (4) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied the relief to which the appellant is entitled. In present case learned first Appellate Court has framed the point for determination in para 6 of judgment and learned Appellate Court has also mentioned the decision in para 13 of relief clause and in other paras learned first Appellate Court has given reasons in brief manner. It is held that reasons given in brief manner by learned first Appellate Court in its judgment has not caused any miscarriage of justice to the appellate because learned first Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. It is held that judgment of first Appellate Court should state ingredients mentioned in Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Point No. 2 of substantial question of law is decided in negative against the appellant. Findings upon Substantial question of law No. 3 framed by Hon’ble High Court:- 14. It is held that judgment of first Appellate Court should state ingredients mentioned in Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Point No. 2 of substantial question of law is decided in negative against the appellant. Findings upon Substantial question of law No. 3 framed by Hon’ble High Court:- 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that findings of learned first Appellate Court are vitiated for nonconsideration of evidence and pleas of the appellant in view of ruling reported in AIR 2001 HP 18 titled Om Parkash vs. State of H.P. Court has perused the judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 18 titled Om Parkash vs. State of H.P. carefully. Facts of present case and facts of case reported in AIR 2001 HP 18 are distinguishable. Learned First Appellate Court had given brief reasons in its judgment. It is held that brief reasons given by learned first Appellate Court in judgment had not caused any miscarriage of justice to appellant because induction of tenancy is not proved on record. It is well settled law that tenancy is a bilateral agreement and induction of tenancy should be proved by way of positive, cogent and reliable evidence when tenancy is disputed by adverse party. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that predecessor of plaintiff was also recorded as tenant as per jamabandi for the year 1955-56 and he has acquired proprietary rights qua entire share of Lachhman Dass as per Section 104 of Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case it is proved on record that father of the plaintiff namely Achroo Ram has purchased 1/3rd share of suit land along with house for a consideration amount of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as per sale deed Ext.DY dated 3.10.1964 placed on record and he became co-owner of 1/3rd share of suit property after purchase of portion of suit land from Mola Ram. It is proved on record that Achroo Ram has acquired 1/3rd ownership title of share in ownership through testamentary document Ext.DY i.e. sale deed placed on record over the suit land on dated 3.10.1964. It is proved on record that father of plaintiff became co-owner of suit property through testamentary document Ext.DY placed on record after sale deed dated 3.10.1964 for the first time. It is proved on record that father of plaintiff became co-owner of suit property through testamentary document Ext.DY placed on record after sale deed dated 3.10.1964 for the first time. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that father of plaintiff Achroo Ram or grandfather of plaintiff namely Kharkoo Ram were recorded as tenant over suit property even prior to 3.10.1964. Court has also perused jamabandi for the year 1955-56 Ext.DX placed on record. In jamabandi Ext.DX placed on record in ownership column name of Lahnoo son of Inder qua 1/3rd share has been shown as mortgagor and name of Ganga son of Chowdry has been shown as mortgagee and Lachhman predecessor in interest of defendants has been shown as owner of 2/3rd share in suit property. In possession column Lahnoo mortgagor has been shown as non-occupancy tenant under mortgagee and under co-sharer Lachhman. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Lahnoo Ram was ancestor of plaintiff Bakshi Ram or father of plaintiff namely Achroo Ram or grandfather of plaintiff Kharkoo as per jamabandi Ext.DX for the year 1955-56 placed on record. It is proved that vide mutation No. 78 property of Lehnu after his death was devolved upon Mola Ram and mutation was attested on dated 9.4.1961. There is also recital in jamabandi for the year 1955-56 Ext.DX in remarks column that vide mutation No. 81 the mortgaged land of 1/3rd share of Lehnu was redeemed on dated 20.8.1962. There is further recital in Ext.DX jamabandi for the year 1955-56 placed on record that vide mutation No. 84 Mola Ram has executed a sale deed in favour of Achroo Ram father of plaintiff qua 05 kanals one marlas of land through sale deed dated 3.10.1964. It is proved on record that Achroo Ram father of plaintiff became owner of suit property for the first time after purchase of 1/3rd share from Mola Ram on dated 3.10.1964. Prior to 1964 there is no entry of tenancy in favour of plaintiff Bakshi Ram or Achroo Ram father of plaintiff or in favour of Kharkoo grandfather of plaintiff. It is proved on record that Achroo Ram father of plaintiff became owner of suit property for the first time after purchase of 1/3rd share from Mola Ram on dated 3.10.1964. Prior to 1964 there is no entry of tenancy in favour of plaintiff Bakshi Ram or Achroo Ram father of plaintiff or in favour of Kharkoo grandfather of plaintiff. Father of plaintiff namely Achroo son of Kharkoo had acquired only proprietary rights of 1/3rd share in suit property as per sale deed Ext.DY on dated 3.10.1964 for the first time because there is recital in sale deed Ext.DY dated 3.10.1964 that Achroo father of plaintiff would get only 1/3rd share in suit property. There is no reference of any tenancy rights in sale deed Ext.DY dated 3.10.1964 in favour of Achroo father of plaintiff. Hence it is held that father of plaintiff Achroo had acquired only ownership rights in the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share only on the basis of testamentary document i.e. sale deed Ext.DY dated 3.10.1964. It is held that plaintiff or father of plaintiff namely Achroo or grandfather of plaintiff Kharkoo did not acquire any tenancy rights over suit property qua 2/3rd share of Lachhman or his LRs. Facts of case laws cited by learned counsel appearing for the appellant i.e. 1981 ILR 563 (HP) titled Savtri Devi and Santa, AIR 2001 HP 18 titled Om Parkash vs. State of H.P., (2001)3 SCC 179 titled Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (2008)2 S.L.J. 1145 (HP) titled Krishan Chand vs. Mohinder, AIR 2001 SC 2171 titled Madhukar and others vs. Sangram and others, (2000)5 SCC 652 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh (dead) through his LRs, (1999)9 SCC 193 titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kanwal Nain Sachdeva and others and (1969) 71 P.L.R. Delhi High Court Himachal Bench atShimla Vol. LXXI- 1969 page 276 titled Lalagar vs. Shiv Ram and facts of present case are entirely different. Hence case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant are not applicable in present case and are distinguishable. It was held in case reported in AIR 1999 SC 3067 titled Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswanm that High Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in routine and casual manner by substituting its subjective satisfaction in place of lower Court. It was held in case reported in AIR 1999 SC 3067 titled Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswanm that High Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in routine and casual manner by substituting its subjective satisfaction in place of lower Court. It was held in case reported in AIR 1998 SC 970 titled Bismillah Begum (dead) through LRs. vs. Rahmatullah Khan (dead) through LRs that findings of fact arrived by Court below are binding in second appeal. In view of the fact that Achroo Ram father of plaintiff or Kharkoo grandfather of plaintiff were not recorded as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land as per jamabandis placed on record prior to 1964 when Achroo Ram father of plaintiff became co-owner of suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share on the basis of sale deed dated 3.10.1964 point No. 3 of substantial question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. is answered in negative against the appellant. 16. In view of above stated facts appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 96 of 1989 decided on 23.1.1995 and judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 26/1995 (RBT 133/02) decided on 22.2.2003 are affirmed. Sale deed Ext.DY dated 3.10.1964 will form part and parcel of decree sheet. Decree shee be prepared strictly as per provisions of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. No order as to costs. Record of learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of this judgment and decree sheet prepared as per provision of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. Appeal stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.