JUDGMENT : - P.S. Rana, Judge. Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur on dated 27th September 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1993 whereby learned District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 16th March, 1993 passed in Civil Suit No. 62/1 of 1990 by learned trial Court. Prayer for setting aside both the judgments and decrees sought with further prayer to decree the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs sought. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Mast Ram and others plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction pleaded therein that defendants be restrained permanently from interfering in the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 361 min Khatauni No. 390 min Khasra No. 302 and 306 measuring 15-8 biswas situated in village Deoli Pargana and Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur. It is further pleaded that alternatively if the plaintiff and proforma defendants are dispossessed during the pendency of suit or if the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are not found in possession of the suit land then possession be also restored. It is pleaded that plaintiffs and proforma defendants are tenants over the suit land under Thakur Dawara Deoli temple for rendering services and religious worship as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88 annexed with the plaint. It is pleaded that defendants are residents of village Deoli and they have no right title or interest over the suit land. It is further pleaded that defendants are forceful persons and they intend to take possession of the suit land forcibly. It is pleaded that defendants have also threatened that they would forcibly occupy the suit land and they would dispossess the plaintiffs and proforma defendants from the suit land. It is pleaded that open threatening was given on dated 20th April, 1990 to dispossess the plaintiffs and on dated 21st April, 1990 when the plaintiffs cultivated the land the defendants entered into suit land with the object of dispossessing the plaintiffs. It is also pleaded that plaintiffs are in settled possession of suit land but if contesting defendants dispossess plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit then possession of the suit land be restored. Prayer for decree the suit as mentioned in head note of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendants Nos. It is also pleaded that plaintiffs are in settled possession of suit land but if contesting defendants dispossess plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit then possession of the suit land be restored. Prayer for decree the suit as mentioned in head note of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendants Nos. 1 to 6 pleaded therein that suit land has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been filed. It is further pleaded that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the civil suit. It is pleaded that dispute is between the landlord tenant and sub-tenant and the plaintiffs are estopped by their act conduct and deeds to file present suit. It is pleaded that plaintiffs are not the tenants over the suit land and they are simply Pujari (Priests) of the temple Thakur Dwara Deoli temple. It is also pleaded that entries in jamabandis are wrong. It is pleaded that defendants have every right title or interest on the suit land and defendants are in settled possession of the particular portion of suit land. It is pleaded that defendants are in settled possession of suit land comprised Khasra No. 302 and 306/1 measuring 3-15 bighas out of suit land. It is also pleaded that plaintiffs have no cause of action against the contesting defendants and contesting defendants are in possession of land since their forefathers and are paying 1/4th of the produce to the Thakur Dwara temple as rent. Prayer for dismissal of civil suit sought. 4. Plaintiffs filed replication and reiterated their pleadings pleaded in the plaint. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 6th April, 1991:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are tenants over the suit land of Thakur Dwara if so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether the defendants are causing unnecessary interference in the peaceful possession of plaintiffs if so its effect? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees? OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD 6. Whether the land comprised in Khasra No. 302, 306/1 is in possession of the defendants, if so its effect? OPD 7. Relief. 5. OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD 6. Whether the land comprised in Khasra No. 302, 306/1 is in possession of the defendants, if so its effect? OPD 7. Relief. 5. Findings of learned trial Court qua issue No. 1 are affirmative in favour of plaintiffs qua Khasra No. 306/2. Findings of learned trial Court qua issue No. 2 are negative against plaintiff. Findings of learned trial Court qua issue Nos. 3 to 5 are negative against defendants. Findings of learned trial Court qua issue No. 6 are in affirmative in favour of the defendants. Learned trial Court held that contesting defendants are in settled possession of suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 302 and 306/1. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs as per operative portion of justice and decree sheet. 6. Feeling aggrieved against judgment and decree of learned trial Court appellants filed Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1993 titled Mast Ram and others vs. Krishanu through LRs and others which was decided on dated 27th September 2002. Learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. 7. Feeling aggrieved by judgments and decrees passed by learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court appellants/plaintiffs filed present Regular Second Appeal and Hon’ble High Court admitted present appeal on the following substantial questions of law on dated 9th January, 2003:- 1. Whether the learned Courts below could have dismissed the suit only on the basis of report of the Tehsildar in some other proceedings which report was neither relevant nor admissible? 2. Whether the learned Courts below have erred in relying upon the statements Ext.DW4/C recorded by the Tehsildar which statements had been recorded without oath? 3. Whether the learned Courts below could have held the respondents to be tenants of land to the extent of 5-01 bighas when the claim of the contesting respondents itself was confined to 3-15 bighas in their written statement? 7. Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the record carefully. Oral evidence adduced by the parties 8. PW1 Mast Ram plaintiff has stated that owner of the suit land is Temple. 7. Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the record carefully. Oral evidence adduced by the parties 8. PW1 Mast Ram plaintiff has stated that owner of the suit land is Temple. He has stated that plaintiffs and proforma defendants are in settled possession of suit land as non-occupancy tenants. He has stated that plaintiffs are performing the prayers in the temple since their ancestors and plaintiffs are priests by caste. He has stated that defendants did not remain in settled possession of suit property and also did not remain as tenants. He has stated that area of suit land is 15 bighas 8 biswas. He has stated that on dated 20th April 1990 and 21st April 1990 defendants forcibly tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. He has stated that copy of jamabandi is Ext.PA and copy of Khasra Girdawari is Ext.PB. He has stated that khasra numbers of suit property are 302 and 306. He has denied suggestion that contesting defendants are in settled possession of 3 bighas and 15 biswas of suit property. He has admitted that wire of Dehar tower had crossed over the suit land. He has stated that he could not state that compensation was granted to Krishanu and Ravinder. He has stated that he could not state that Tehsildar had visited the spot. He has also stated that he does not know as to whether tatima was prepared by Tehsildar or not. He has denied suggestion that Khasra Nos. 302 and 306/1 are in settled possession of contesting defendants. He has also denied suggestion that contesting defendants are tenants over Khasra No. 302 and 306/1. 9. DW1 Ravinder has stated that Khasra Nos. 302 and 306/1 measuring 3 bighas 15 biswas are in his possession and in possession of his father Krishanu since 20 years. He has stated that owner of suit property is Thakur Dwara temple. He has stated that worship in the temple is conducted by plaintiff Mast Ram. He has stated that he used to pay 1/4th of the crop to the temple. He has stated that tower line was also passed from the suit property and compensation was also granted to contesting defendants. He has stated that Tehsildar had also visited the spot along with Halqua Patwari in the year 1989. He has stated that he used to pay 1/4th of the crop to the temple. He has stated that tower line was also passed from the suit property and compensation was also granted to contesting defendants. He has stated that Tehsildar had also visited the spot along with Halqua Patwari in the year 1989. He has stated that tatima was also prepared qua the area which was in settled possession of contesting defendants and thereafter Collector has passed the order of compensation. He has stated that damage of crop was also granted to the contesting defendants. He has stated that Khasra Nos. 302 and 306/1 are still in possession of contesting defendants and contesting defendants have shown the crops. He has stated that contesting defendants are claiming possession over 3 bighas 15 biswas of land only. He has stated that remaining land is in possession of Mast Ram. He has denied suggestion that contesting defendants are not tenants over suit land and also denied suggestion that contesting defendants are not in settled possession upon any portion of suit land. 10. DW2 Gopala has stated that parties are known to him and he has also seen the suit property. He has stated that suit property is situated nearby his house. He has stated that 3-4 bighas of land is cultivated by Krishanu and Ravinder. He has stated that as of today also area measuring 3-4 bighas is in possession of Krishanu and Ravinder. He has further stated that Krishanu and Ravinder are cultivating the area measuring 3-4 bighas since 35-36 years. He has stated that temple Thakur Dwara is owner of suit land. He has stated that Mast Ram used to perform the duty of Priest in the temple. He has stated that Krishanu and Ravinder used to pay 1/4th of crops to the temple. He has stated that dispute occurred inter se the parties when tower line crossed over the suit property and when both parties claimed damages of crops. He has stated that Tehsildar along with Halqua Patwari also visited the spot and recorded statements. He has stated that 3-4 bighas of land was found in settled possession of Krishanu and he has stated that remaining land is in possession of plaintiffs. He has stated that he is a member of Gram Panchayat Deoli and suit land falls in his jurisdiction. 11. He has stated that 3-4 bighas of land was found in settled possession of Krishanu and he has stated that remaining land is in possession of plaintiffs. He has stated that he is a member of Gram Panchayat Deoli and suit land falls in his jurisdiction. 11. DW3 Krishanu has stated that Mast Ram and Krishanu are known to him. He has seen the suit property. He has stated that contesting defendants are in possession of 3 bighas 15 biswas of land. He has stated that contesting defendants used to pay 1/4th of crop to Thakur Dwara. He has stated that dispute occurred inter se parties at the time when tower lines crossed over the suit land and when crop was damaged. He has stated that Tehsildar, Halqua Patwari and Kanungo visited the spot and statement recorded. He has stated that taima was also prepared by the revenue officials. 12. DW4 B.R. Kaundal Tehsildar has stated that he was posted as Tehsildar at Sadar in the year 1991. He has stated that he visited the spot on dated 5th August, 1989. He has stated that he personally recorded statements of Gopala, Sita Ram, Bararu, Vohari, Domati, Surender, Pyare Lal, Dila and Jagdish. He has stated that copy of statement Ext.DW4/A is correct as per original record. He has stated that he also recorded statement of Mast Ram Ext.DW4/C which is also correct as per original record. He has proved document Ext.DW4/D and stated that tatima was prepared by Halqua Patwari as per his direction and as per factual position of the spot. He has stated that copy of tatima is Ext.DW4/F. He has stated that thereafter he submitted his report Ext.DW4/G which is correct as per revenue record. He has stated that Khasra Nos. 302 and 306/1 were in possession of Krishanu and his son Ravinder Kumar. He has stated that when he visited the spot at that time he possessed the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade and Land Reform Officer. He has denied suggestion that he submitted the report contrary to the factual position of spot. 13. DW5 Gajan Ram Patwari has stated that he was posted in Patwar Circle Halqua Deoli and he remained posted as such w.e.f. 12th June 1987 to 30th October 1991. On 5th August, 1989 he visited village Deoli along with Tehsildar. He has denied suggestion that he submitted the report contrary to the factual position of spot. 13. DW5 Gajan Ram Patwari has stated that he was posted in Patwar Circle Halqua Deoli and he remained posted as such w.e.f. 12th June 1987 to 30th October 1991. On 5th August, 1989 he visited village Deoli along with Tehsildar. He has stated that he prepared tatima as per directions of Tehsildar. He has stated that tatima was personally prepared by him and signed him and copy is Ext.DW5/A. He has stated that tatima was prepared after demarcation. He has stated that no receipt of rent was produced by Krishanu. He has denied suggestion that he did not prepare tatima at the spot. Findings upon Substantial Question of law No. 1:- 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that report of Tehsildar District Bilaspur Ext.DW4/G qua possession of contesting defendants over suit land is not relevant in present case because it was submitted in other case No. 24/89 filed before the Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur in miscellaneous application filed by the residents of Deoli regarding payment of compensation of damage/loss caused to the land/trees/crops of temple Thakur Dwara is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that issue of possession over the suit land is issue of fact. It is well settled law that issue of fact of possession can be proved by a party by way of leading oral as well as documentary evidence. In present case contesting defendants have proved the fact of possession over the suit property comprised in Khasra Nos. 302 and 306/1 by way of submission of report of Tehsildar District Bilaspur and by way of producing the Tehsildar as witness DW4 B.R. Kaundal in present case. Due opportunity was granted by learned trial Court to appellants to cross examine DW4 B.R. Kaundal then Tehsildar. It is well settled law that evidence in a case is complete when examination in chief and cross examination of oral witness is recorded by learned trial Court as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. Due opportunity was granted by learned trial Court to appellants to cross examine DW4 B.R. Kaundal then Tehsildar. It is well settled law that evidence in a case is complete when examination in chief and cross examination of oral witness is recorded by learned trial Court as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. In present case learned trial Court has recorded oral testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal and due opportunity of cross examination was given to appellants and it was held that oral testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal recorded in the Court in the present case has become evidence as per Indian Evidence Act 1872 in present case. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that DW4 B.R. Kaundal then Tehsildar has hostile animus against appellants at any point of time. Hence it is held that testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal and report submitted by him are relevant and admissible under the Indian Evidence Act 1872 in present case because due opportunity of cross examination of DW4 B.R. Kaundal then Tehsildar was given to appellants by learned trial Court in present Case. Testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal qua possession of contesting defendants over suit property remained unrebutted on record. Testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal is also corroborated by DW5 Gajan Ram Halqua Patwari who has prepared tatima Ext.DW5/A placed on record. There is no evidence on record that DW5 Gajan Ram Halqua Patwari has hostile animus against appellants at any point of time. Testimony of DW5 Gajan Ram Halqua Patwari inspires confidence of Court. Even contesting defendants have also produced independent witness DW2 Gopala who was member of Gram Panchayat Deoli and DW2 Gopala has stated in positive manner that contesting defendants are in settled possession of suit property measuring 3-4 bighas. Testimony of DW2 Gopala is also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no evidence to disbelieve the testimony of DW2 Gopala. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that DW2 Gopala has hostile animus against appellants at any point of time. Appellant Mast Ram did not examine any independent witness in support of his case. Testimony of PW1 Mast Ram is rebutted by independent witness i.e. DW2 Gopala, DW4 B.R. Kaundal and DW5 Gajan Ram. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that DW2 Gopala has hostile animus against appellants at any point of time. Appellant Mast Ram did not examine any independent witness in support of his case. Testimony of PW1 Mast Ram is rebutted by independent witness i.e. DW2 Gopala, DW4 B.R. Kaundal and DW5 Gajan Ram. In absence of independent corroborative evidence on behalf of appellants it is not expedient in the ends of justice to disbelieve the testimonies of independent witnesses namely DW2 Gopala, DW4 B.R. Kaundal and DW5 Gajan who have no prior hostile animus against appellants. Hence substantial question of law No. 1 is answered in negative against appellants. Findings upon Substantial question of law No. 2 15. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that learned trial Court has committed grave illegality by way of relying upon statement Ext.DW4/C recorded by Tehsildar without oath is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned trial Court has not only considered statement Ext.DW4/C but also relied upon the oral testimonies of DW4 B.R. Kaundal and DW5 Gajan Ram. Testimonies of DW4 B.R. Kaundal and DW5 Gajan Ram were recorded by learned trial Court on oath in present case and due opportunity of cross examination was also given to appellants by learned trial Court in proceedings of the present case. Hence testimonies of DW4 B.R. Kaundal and DW5 Gajan Ram recorded on oath by learned trial Court fall within definition of evidence as defined in the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and same could be used against the appellants in present case. It is not the case of appellants that no opportunity of cross examination upon oral testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal Tehsildar and DW5 Gajan Ram Halqua Patwari given to appellants by learned trial Court. Appellants have cross examined DW4 B.R. Kaundal and DW5 Gajan Ram at length in present case. Hence it is held that oral testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal Tehsildar and DW5 Gajan Ram Halqua Patwari recorded in present case could be used against appellants qua factum of possession over the suit property. Hence substantial question of law No. 2 is also answered in negative against the appellants. Findings upon Substantial question of law No. 3:- 16. Hence it is held that oral testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal Tehsildar and DW5 Gajan Ram Halqua Patwari recorded in present case could be used against appellants qua factum of possession over the suit property. Hence substantial question of law No. 2 is also answered in negative against the appellants. Findings upon Substantial question of law No. 3:- 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that in written statement respondents have pleaded possession of land to the extent of 3.15 bighas but in judgment learned trial Court has held the possession of contesting defendants to the extent of 5-4 bighas contrary to law and contrary to the proved facts is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimony of oral testimony of DW4 B.R. Kaundal and testimony of DW5 Gajan Ram Halqua Patwari. DW5 Gajan Ram Halqua Patwari has specifically stated that he has prepared tatima Ext.DW5/A. Court has carefully perused tatima Ext.DW5/A placed on record. As per tatima settled possession of contesting defendants over Khasra No. 306/1 found 4-6 bighas and over Khasra No. 302 found 0-15 bighas at the spot. It is well settled law that Court can mould the relief as per exigency of circumstances. (See 1994(4) SLJ 3091 titled Yogindra Pal and others vs. Municipality, Bhatinda and another.) In present case Court has given the findings as per the report proved on record by way of testimony of Tehsildar and Field Kanungo coupled with spot inspection report along with field book. Court has given the findings qua possession as per factual evidence proved on record by way of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record in present case. 17. Even as per documentary evidence i.e. jamabandi for the year 1987-88 Ext.PA placed on record it is proved on record that suit property is owned by Thakur Dwara temple. It is well settled law that idol is treated as minor as per provision of law. It is well settled law that Court is under legal obligation to protect the interest of minor. In present case both the parties have pleaded tenancy under idol Thakur Dwara. It is well settled law that Civil Court cannot give the findings of tenancy unless owner of immovable property qua which the tenancy is claimed is not impleaded as co-party. It is well settled law that Court is under legal obligation to protect the interest of minor. In present case both the parties have pleaded tenancy under idol Thakur Dwara. It is well settled law that Civil Court cannot give the findings of tenancy unless owner of immovable property qua which the tenancy is claimed is not impleaded as co-party. It is well settled law that no one should be condemned unheard on the concept of audi-alterm-partem.It is also well settled law that tenancy is bilateral agreement and induction of tenancy should be proved in accordance with law. It is well settled law that entry in revenue record is not entry of title but is prepared to only collect the revenue qua the immovable property. It was held in case reported in 1994 (1) S.L.J. 68titledJhattuRamvs.HakamSingh&othersthat jamabandi entries are only statements for revenue purpose and they create no title. (Also see AIR 1994 SC 227 titled Guru Amarjit Singh vs. Rattan Chand and others) It is well settled law that concurrent finding of fact by learned trial Court and by first Appellate Court are conclusive unless finding arrived are contrary to law or procedure. (See AIR 1969 SC 1291 titled Gappulal vs. Thakurji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji and another See:- AIR 2003 SC 4351 titled Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and another vs. Pratima Maity and others See AIR 2003 SC 4548 title R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another See AIR 1976 SC 2547 titled The State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra Trivedi See:- AIR 1999 SC 2213 titled Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others See : AIR 1959 SC 1204 titled Paras Nath Thakur vs. Smt. Mohani Dasi (deceased) and others and See : AIR 1956 SC 593 titled Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others) Case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants i.e. 2012 (2) Civil CC 292 (SC) titled Vishwanath vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal and the case reported in 1996 (1) Current Law Journal (HP) 424 titled Khazana Ram vs. Ghungar are not applicable in present case because facts of the case cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and facts of present case are entirely different. In present case appellants have claimed tenancy under the ownership of Thakur Dwara temple which is idol. In present case appellants have claimed tenancy under the ownership of Thakur Dwara temple which is idol. Plaintiff did not implead Thakur Dwara temple as co-party in present case. It is well settled law that idol is treated as minor and it is duty of the Court to protect the interest of minor. It is well settled law that there is wide difference between right of tenancy and right of priest to worship the idol. In the record of right prepared under the H.P. Land Revenue Act right of appellants to worship the idol has only been recorded and it is well settled law that right to worship the idol did not include tenancy right qua the suit property. In present case it is held that findings of learned trial Court are not based upon any error of law or error of procedure. Substantial question of law No. 3 is answered in negative against appellants. Hence in view of above stated facts findings of learned trial Court and findings of first Appellate Court are affirmed and appeal filed by appellants is dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.