JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, Judge. Present RSA is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against judgment and decree dated 9.1.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala HP in Civil Appeal No. 61-B/2001 titled Baldev Raj Vs. Urmila Devi. Brief facts of the case: 2. Smt. Urmila Devi plaintiff filed civil suit for possession of shop situated in khata No. 249 khatauni No.590 khasra No. 126 measuring 0-00-32 hectares mohal and mauza Baijnath District Kangra HP vide jamabandi for the year 1992-93. Plaintiff also sought additional relief for recovery of Rs.8100/- (Eight thousand one hundred) on account of arrears of rent for three years w.e.f. December 1995 to November 1998 @ Rs.225/- per month. It is pleaded that plaintiff is owner of shop situated in suit land. It is pleaded that defendant is tenant. It is pleaded that defendant did not pay rent. It is pleaded that shop is in dilapidated condition and it requires major repairs. It is pleaded that shop would collapse at any time. It is pleaded that plaintiff also required the shop for her personal use and occupation. It is pleaded that plaintiff wants to reconstruct shop. It is pleaded that plaintiff requested defendant to pay rent and to vacate the shop but defendant did not accept the request of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that tenancy of the shop is on monthly basis. It is pleaded that plaintiff served notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 upon defendant terminating the tenancy of defendant. It is pleaded that despite notice defendant did not vacate the shop. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that suit in the present form is not maintainable and plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct to file present suit. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit. It is pleaded that Urmila Devi did not appoint Sh Milap Chand as her attorney. It is pleaded that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that no valid and proper notice is given to the defendant as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882. It is pleaded that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pleaded that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that no valid and proper notice is given to the defendant as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882. It is pleaded that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pleaded that suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It is denied that plaintiff is owner of the shop. It is pleaded that shop was rented out to defendant by Sh. Saran Dass about 33 years back. It is pleaded that tenancy in favour of defendant is perpetual tenancy. It is pleaded that defendant is regularly paying rent to Saran Dass. It is denied that shop is in dilapidated condition. It is denied that shop would collapse at any time. It is pleaded that successor-in-interest of late Sh Saran Dass and plaintiff during pendency of suit have damaged the northern wall of the shop with mischievous and malafide intention. It is pleaded that Urmila Devi is not owner of the premises. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no locus standi to claim the rent and also to seek eviction of the shop. It is pleaded that no cause of action is created in favour of plaintiff. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Plaintiff also filed replication and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in the plaint. As per pleadings of parties following issues were framed by learned trial Court on dated 9.5.2000. 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the shop in question as alleged? …OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.8100/- from defendant as alleged? …OPP. 3. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? …OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filling present suit as alleged? …OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit as alleged? …OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? …OPD 7. Whether proper notice has been issued to defendant under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act as alleged? ….OPP. 8. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try suit as alleged? . …OPD 9. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged? …OPD. 10 Whether plaintiff is owner/landlady of suit land as alleged? …OPP 11. Relief. 5. ….OPP. 8. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try suit as alleged? . …OPD 9. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged? …OPD. 10 Whether plaintiff is owner/landlady of suit land as alleged? …OPP 11. Relief. 5. Learned trial Court decided issues No. 1,2,7 and 10 in affirmative and learned trial Court decided issues No.3,4,5,6,8 and 9 in negative. Learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by plaintiff for possession of the premises in question with costs. Learned trial Court further directed defendant to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.7200/- (Seven thousand two hundred). Learned trial Court further directed that map Ext PW1/E would form part of the decree. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court Baldev Raj filed appeal before learned first appellate Court which was decided on 9th January 2003. Learned first appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dated 30th March 2001. Learned first appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court Smt. Urmila Devi appellant filed present RSA. RSA was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on dated 9.9.2003. 1. Whether first appellate Court erred in permitting the defendant-respondent to challenge the title of plaintiff-appellant in suit property?. (2) Whether plaintiff could have been no suited on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff did not appear as her own witness?. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant. Respondent did not appear despite service. 9. Findings upon point No.1 of substantial question of law with reasons. 9.1 PW1. Milap Chand has stated that he is general attorney of Urmila Devi. He has stated Urmila is his wife. He has stated that copy of general attorney is Ext PW1/A. He has stated disputed shop is situated in Baijnath market. He has stated that shop is upon tenancy. He has stated that condition of shop is not proper. He has stated that wall of the shop had demolished. He has stated that upper roof of the shop has also uprooted. He has stated that wooden of the shop has also rotten. He has stated that he requested defendant to vacate the shop but defendant did not vacate the shop. He has stated that wall of the shop had demolished. He has stated that upper roof of the shop has also uprooted. He has stated that wooden of the shop has also rotten. He has stated that he requested defendant to vacate the shop but defendant did not vacate the shop. He has stated that notice Ext PW1/B was given to defendant. He has stated that postal receipt is Ext PW1/C and acknowledgment is Ext PW1/D. He has stated that defendant has not paid rent to plaintiff. He has stated that site plan is Ext PW1/E. He has stated that copy of jamabandi is Ext PW1/F. He has stated that rent deed was written in the year 1996. He has stated the rent deed is mark ‘A’. He has stated that tenancy was not perpetual tenancy. He has stated that shop was constructed 100 years ago. He has denied suggestion that Baldev Raj did not execute any tenancy deed. He has denied suggestion that plaintiff forcibly want to evict the defendant from shop. He has denied suggestion that civil suit is filed just to harass the defendant. 9.2 PW2 Nanak Chand has stated that both parties are known to him and he has seen disputed shop. He has stated that he has signed document Ext PW2/A as marginal witness. He has stated that defendant has also signed document Ext PW2/A. He has stated that rent of the shop was Rs.225/- per month. He has stated that defendant had signed tenancy deed after reading the contents of tenancy deed. He has stated that he is familiar with Urmila Devi since 20 to 25 years. He has stated that Saran Dass had died. He has denied suggestion that forged tenancy deed was prepared. He has denied suggestion that he deposed in collusion with husband of plaintiff. 9.3 PW3 Mohan has stated that parties are known to him and he has seen disputed shop. He has stated that he signed tenancy deed Ext PW2/A as marginal witness. He has stated that rent of the shop was Rs.225/ per month. He has stated that earlier owner of shop was Saran Dass. He has stated that Saran Dass had died. He has stated that property of Saran Dass was devolved upon his legal heirs. He has denied suggestion that forged tenancy deed Ext PW2/A was prepared. He has stated that rent of the shop was Rs.225/ per month. He has stated that earlier owner of shop was Saran Dass. He has stated that Saran Dass had died. He has stated that property of Saran Dass was devolved upon his legal heirs. He has denied suggestion that forged tenancy deed Ext PW2/A was prepared. He has denied suggestion that defendant did not sign tenancy deed in his presence. 9.4 DW1 Baldev Raj has stated that he took shop upon tenancy in the year 1967 from Saran Dass. He has stated that tenancy was perpetual in nature. He has stated that Saran Dass had died living behind one son and three daughters as his legal heirs. He has stated that after the death of Saran Dass his widow Brahami Devi used to take rent from him. He has stated that shop in dispute is in proper condition. He has stated that during the pendency of civil suit Milap Chand has created hole in the back wall of the shop. He has stated that upper portion of the shop was also uprooted. He has stated that he is running business of stationary and news paper in the shop. He has stated that he is also holder of L.I.C. agency. He has stated that he did not execute any tenancy deed in the presence of Mohan Lal and Nanak Chand. He has stated that he has no other source of income except shop in dispute. He has stated that he does not know that after the death of Saran Dass the property was devolved upon Brahami Devi. He has stated that he does not know that Brahami Devi executed Will in favour of Urmila Devi plaintiff. He has admitted that Milap Chand is the husband of Urmila Devi. He has stated that he does not know that Urmila had given power of attorney to Milap Chand. He has stated that he does not know that rent of the shop is Rs. 225/- per month. He has denied suggestion that shop is in very bad condition. He has admitted his signature in document Ext PW2/A. 9.5 DW2 Ram Parkash has stated that Saran Dass was known to him. He has stated that Baldev is also known to him. He has stated that Milap Chand is son of Saran Dass. He has stated that Saran Dass has three daughters. He has admitted his signature in document Ext PW2/A. 9.5 DW2 Ram Parkash has stated that Saran Dass was known to him. He has stated that Baldev is also known to him. He has stated that Milap Chand is son of Saran Dass. He has stated that Saran Dass has three daughters. He has stated that he has seen disputed shop. He has stated that shop was took on tenancy by defendant from Saran Dass in the year 1967-68. He has stated that a hole has been created in the back wall of shop. He has stated that tins of roof of shop also uprooted. He has stated that defendant is running a stationary work in the shop. He has stated that there is stock of two/three lacs in the shop. He has stated that he did not see who had created hole in the shop. He has stated that his house is situated at a distance of 2 Km. from shop. He has admitted that Saran Dass had died and his property was devolved upon Brahami Devi. He has stated that he does not know that Brahami Devi had alienated her entire property in favour of Urmila Devi by way of Will. He has denied suggestion that shop is in dilapidated condition. 10. Following documents produced by the parties. (1) Ext PW1/A photo copy of general power of attorney.(2) Ext PW1/B copy of legal notice dated 11.11.1998 under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882. (3) Ext PW1/C postal receipt. (4) Ext.PW1/D acknowledgment receipt. (5) Ext.PW1/E site plan of shop in dispute. (6) Ext PW1/F copy of jamabandi for the year 1992. (7) Ext PW2/A rent deed dated 20.5.1996. (8) Ext PA copy of mutation of suit property in favour of Urmila plaintiff on the basis of oral Will. (9) Ext DA copy of missal haquiat settlement qua suit property. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned first appellate Court committed error in permitting defendant to challenge the title of plaintiff in the suit property is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that as per testimony of PW2 Nanak Chand and PW3 Mohan that defendant had executed rent deed Ext PW2/A placed on record on 20th May 1996. Rent deed Ext PW2/A placed on record remained un-rebutted. It is proved on record that as per testimony of PW2 Nanak Chand and PW3 Mohan that defendant had executed rent deed Ext PW2/A placed on record on 20th May 1996. Rent deed Ext PW2/A placed on record remained un-rebutted. Even defendant had admitted his signature in rent deed Ext PW2/A placed on record when he appeared in the witness box. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 Nanak Chand and PW3 Mohan. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW2 Nanak Chand and PW3 Mohan have hostile animus against defendant at any point of time. The fact of execution of rent deed Ext PW2/A is proved on record as per testimony of PW2 Nanak Chand PW3 Mohan. It is well settled law that facts can be proved by way of oral or documentary evidence. In the present case rent deed is proved by way of document Ext PW2/A and by way of oral testimony of marginal witnesses PW2 Nanak Chand and PW3 Mohan. 12. Defendant has admitted that he took shop upon tenancy from Saran Dass son of Daya Ram. It is proved on record that Saran Dass died and thereafter suit property was devolved upon Smt. Brahami Devi widow of Saran Dass. Court has perused missal haquiat settlement Ext DA placed on record. As per missal haquiat settlement Ext DA placed on record Smt. Brahami Devi widow of Saran Dass is recorded in the ownership column and Sh. Baldev defendant is recorded as tenant and rent is recorded as Rs.420/- per annum. It is also proved on record as per document Ext PA placed on record that Smt. Brahami Devi died on 12.03.1991 and thereafter rapat No. 411 dated 6.5.1991 was recorded to the effect that Brahami had executed oral Will in favour of Smt. Urmila plaintiff. It is also proved on record that thereafter Assistant Collector revenue officer while exercising powers under H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 had sanctioned mutation in favour of Urmila qua the suit property on the basis of oral Will executed by Brahami. It is also proved on record that thereafter Assistant Collector revenue officer while exercising powers under H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 had sanctioned mutation in favour of Urmila qua the suit property on the basis of oral Will executed by Brahami. It is also proved on record that thereafter in jamabandi 1992-93 Ext PW1/F placed on record in the ownership column name of Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Milap Chand son of Saran Dass was recorded and in the possession column name of defendant as tenant at the rent of Rs.420/- (Four hundred twenty) per annum was also recorded. Mutation Ext PA and jamabandi Ext PW1/F were prepared by public servants in discharge of their official duty under HP Land Revenue Act 1954. H.P Land Revenue Act 1954 is a special Act. It is held that entries of mutation and entries of jamabandi placed on record are relevant facts under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Defendant did not examine any revenue officials who have recorded entries in the mutation register and in jamabandi in order to rebut entries of mutation and jamabandi. In order to render public document as admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 three conditions should be satisfied.(1) Entry relied on must be recorded in official record, in official book or official register. (2) It must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact. (3) It must be made by public servant in discharge of his official duty or in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. Entry in record of right is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 on the principle that law reposes confidence in public official entrusted with public duty and it is presumed that public officials will discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity unless contrary is proved. Entry in record of right is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 on the principle that law reposes confidence in public official entrusted with public duty and it is presumed that public officials will discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity unless contrary is proved. Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is quoted in toto: “Relevancy of entry in public [record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty—An entry in any public or other official book, register or (record or an electronic record), stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or (record or an electronic record) is kept is itself a relevant fact.” 13. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1691 titled Murugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu that public document can be safely relied when public documents are admissible under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Entry in the mutation Ext PA and entry in jamabandi Ext PW1/F are relating to entries stating fact in issue inter se the parties. It is held that entry of mutation Ext PA and entry of jamabandi Ext PW1/F are admissible under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 for deciding the fact in issue inter se the parties. Ext PA mutation document and Ext PW1/F jamabandi entries placed on record relating to suit property are relevant fact under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act because above stated documents have been prepared by public officials under special Act i.e. HP Land Revenue Act 1954 in discharge of their official duty. Defendant did not examine any revenue officials who have prepared aforesaid documents in discharge of their public official duties in order to rebut the revenue entries. Even as per section 45 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 which is special Act presumption is in favour of entries in record of rights and periodical records until contrary is proved. Point No.1 of substantial question of law is decided in favour of appellant. Finding upon point No.2 of substantial question of law: 14. Even as per section 45 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 which is special Act presumption is in favour of entries in record of rights and periodical records until contrary is proved. Point No.1 of substantial question of law is decided in favour of appellant. Finding upon point No.2 of substantial question of law: 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant could not be non-suited on the ground that appellant did not appear personally as witness is also accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Present civil suit is filed by Smt. Urmila Devi through her husband namely Milap Chand who appeared in the witness box. Smt. Urmila Devi is a lady and she has given general power of attorney to her husband namely Milap Chand. General power of attorney Ext PW1/A placed on record remained un-rebutted. Defendant did not file any application before learned trial Court for examination of Urmila Devi in person. In view of the fact that defendant did not file any application before learned trial Court for examination of Urmila Devi in person court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to draw adverse inference against Urmila Devi for her personal non appearance in Court. Hence point No.2 of substantial question of law is decided accordingly. 15. In view of above stated facts RSA No. 156 of 2003 titled Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. Baldev Raj is allowed and judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala HP in civil appeal No. 61- B/2001 dated 9.1.2003 titled Baldev Raj Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi are set aside and judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in civil suit No.7 of 1999 decided on 30.3.2001 titled Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. Baldev Raj are upheld. No order as to costs. Record of learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of judgment and decree. Registrar Judicial will prepare decree sheet in accordance with law. RSA No. 156 of 2003 is disposed of. Pending application if any also disposed of.