JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The plaintiffs are the appellants and have come up in appeal against concurrent findings recorded against them by the learned Courts below. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants late Sh. Man Mohan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents on the allegations that he had been owner in possession of the land described in Khata Khatauni No. 42 min/86, Khasra Nos. 983/491 measuring 0-3 bigha and 984/491 measuring 0-13 bighas situated in Mauza Dalan, Pargana Kepu, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla( hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land’). The suit land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and other co-sharers. However, in family partition, the suit land had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been utilizing the usufruct of the suit land. In 1970-71 Oddi-Bithal horticultural link road stood constructed through old Khasra No. 491. As a result of construction of the said link road, Khasra No. 491 (old) owned and possessed by the plaintiff and other co-sharers had been bifurcated into two parts. Khasra No. 983/491 measuring 0-3 bigha had fallen on the upper side of Oddi-Bithal horticultural link road and Khasra No.984/491 measuring 0-13 bigha had fallen on the lower side of the said link road. Revenue estate Dalan had been subjected to settlement operation in 1994-95. At the time of the last settlement in 1994-95, new Khasra No.1075 measuring 0-06-73 hectares had been carved out of old Khasra No. 983/491 and 984/491 both measuring 0-16 bigha. It was averred that the settlement official had fallen into error in carving out new khasra No. 1075 out of 2 old Khasra Nos. 983/491 and 984/491 as these two old khasra numbers were not contiguous and could not have been formed one compact piece of land. Oddi-Bithal horticultural link road had bifurcated old Khasra No. 983/491 and 984/491. The defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land described in Khasra No. 983/491 measuring 0-3 bigha. On 5.5.1998, the defendants had trespassed into the suit land and had threatened to take away grass therefrom. The defendants had been requested not to commit mischief but without any result. The plaintiff prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 3. On 5.5.1998, the defendants had trespassed into the suit land and had threatened to take away grass therefrom. The defendants had been requested not to commit mischief but without any result. The plaintiff prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 3. The respondents/defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing written statement. The defendants denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land described in Khasra No. 983/491 measuring 0-3 bigha situated on upper side of Oddi-Bithal horticultural link road. It was averred that the plaintiff had been owner in possession of Khasra No. 983/491 and 984/491 both measuring 0-16 bighas situated on the lower side of Oddi-Bithal horticultural link road. The defendants pleaded that they are owners in possession of the land described in Khasra Nos. 967, 968, 969, 970 and 974 measuring 0-14-31 hectares in revenue estate Dalan on the upper side of Oddi-Bithal horticultural link road. The plaintiff had not been owner in possession of any land above the aforesaid link road. The defendants had denied having interfered with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff on the suit land on 5.5.1998. The settlement official had rightly carved Khasra No. 1075 measuring 0-06-73 hectares out of two old khasra Nos. 983/491 and 984/491 measuring 0-16 bigha. The defendants had denied bifurcation of old khasra No. 491 as a result of construction of Oddi-Bithal horticultural link road so as to divide the remaining area of Khasra No. 491 into two parts viz., 983/491 on the upper side of the highway and Khasra No. 984/491 on the lower side of the highway. The defendants averred that no cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff to institute the suit. The plaintiff was not entitled to any relief much less to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and the averments as made in the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated and re-affirmed. 5. On 17.11.1998 the learned trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, prayed for? OPP. 2. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and the averments as made in the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated and re-affirmed. 5. On 17.11.1998 the learned trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether during the settlement operation, the settlement agency wrongly and illegally denoted Khasra No. 983/491 and 984/491 as Khasra No. 1075 and that too below the road, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether middle portion of Khasra No. 491 was acquired by the Govt. and the portion that remained on the upper side of the road was given khasra No. 983/491 and the portion which remained on the lower side of the road was given khasra No. 984/491, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief. 6. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff/appellants filed an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, who too vide judgment and decree dated 11.9.2000 has been pleased to dismiss the same. 7. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, the appellants/plaintiff is before this Court by way of present regular second appeal. 8. This Court vide order dated 16.11.2001 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Court below is justified in ignoring the contents of Ex.PC which is a certified copy of revenue record, attestation of mutation showing the exact location of the suit land and to which presumption of truth is attached under the Evidence Act?” 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 10. Ms. Nisha Thakur, Advocate, learned vice counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that as a result of construction of Oddi-Bithal horticultural link road, old khasra No. 491 of the plaintiff and other co-sharers got divided into two parts. Khasra No.983/491 measuring 0-3 bighas was on the upper side of the aforesaid road whereas khasra No. 984/491 measuring 0-13 bighas was on the lower side of the highway. Khasra No.983/491 measuring 0-3 bighas was on the upper side of the aforesaid road whereas khasra No. 984/491 measuring 0-13 bighas was on the lower side of the highway. She invited my attention to mutation No. 464 Ex.PC which shows that khasra No. 491 had been divided into two parts. The middle portion of khasra No. 491 had been acquired by the State for construction of the road leaving behind khasra No. 983/491 and 984/491 on left and right side of the road. At the time of settlement operations, new khasra No. 1075 measuring 0-06-73 hectares was shown to have been carved out of the two old khasra No. 983/491 and 984/491 measuring 0-16 bighas and shown to have constituted a compact piece of land. The learned trial Court as also the learned lower appellate Court discarded the record prepared during the settlement operation as admittedly there was a road in between these two khasra numbers. They further discarded mutation No. 464 (Ex.PC) by holding that too much importance could not attach to the field map since the dimensions of area had not been reflected therein. In absence of such dimensions of khasra Nos. 983/491 and 984/491 correctness of field map was open to question. 11. A close scrutiny of the evidence on record shows that the plaintiff has not cared to examine the revenue official, who had prepared field map of old khasra No. 491 of mutation Ex.PC. 12. Even otherwise, it is settled law that mutation entries do not confer title and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur (Smt.) and others (1996) 6 SCC 223 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that “mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment”. 13. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment”. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants would then contend that alongwith this appeal an application bearing CMP No. 843 of 2001 had been filed by the appellants for permission to adduce additional evidence and vide order dated 16.11.2001 this application had been ordered to be heard alongwith the appeal. I have gone through the application wherein it has been contended that the appellants had already produced on record the mutation Ex.PC and it was reasonably expected that the revenue record would reflect the exact measurements and it is now that the appellants have managed to get the exact measurements of the land trifurcated vide mutation Ex.PC. 14. As observed earlier, there is no presumption of truth attached to the mutation and the appellant/plaintiff was therefore, required to lead clear, convincing and cogent evidence to establish his claim. The appellant appears to be under misconception that mutation entries have presumptive value of title. 15. At this stage, it may be noted that the plaintiff in his evidence has admitted having got the suit land demarcated more than once. However, the plaintiff did not choose to place on record the copies of such demarcation which were admittedly prepared at his instance. Therefore, irresistible conclusion is that the demarcation of the suit land had gone against the plaintiff or else he would have produced the same. Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act, reads as under: “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The Court may presume – (a) to (f) xx xx xx (g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.” Generally, it is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in his favour, which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the Court may draw adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act notwithstanding, that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence. (See: Murugesam Pillai v. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, AIR 1917 PC 6 ; Hiralal & Ors. v. Badkulal & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 225 ; A. Raghavamma & Anr. V. A. Chenchamma & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 136 ; The Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1965 SC 1755 ; Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1413 ; M/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 2003 SC 3024 ; Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3813 and Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 126 ). The substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the appellants. 16. In view of detailed discussion above, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications. The parties are left to bear their own costs.