JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 rendered by the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal RBT No. 312-D/10/07. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (herein after referred to as ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) instituted a suit against the appellants-defendants and proforma respondent to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land bearing Khata No.83 min, Khatauni No. 140 min, Khasra No. 185, measuring 0-24-55 hectares situated at Mohal Jhikli Dar, Mauza Ghaniara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. Prior to the settlement, suit land was recorded under Khasra Nos. 370, 373 and 376 in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1967-68. However, during settlement, defendants in collusion with the settlement staff got their possession recorded as tenant. Defendants were never in possession of the suit land. They never cultivated the suit land. It is in these circumstances, suit for declaration declaring the revenue entries null and void. He has also prayed for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiff over the suit land. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants, they were tenant at will over the suit land since 1977. They were tenant over Khasra Nos. 504 and 548 and the tenancy of Khasra No. 504 was exchanged with the suit land bearing Khasra No. 185. 4. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dharamshala on 10.2.2002. He decreed the suit on 28.9.2007. Defendants feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2007 preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge-II, Dharamshala. He dismissed the appeal on 19.10.2011. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. “Whether the learned trial court has wrongly entertained the suit since there is specific bar under section 58 (3) of the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act to determine the question of tenancy? 2. Whether the learned court below has correctly decided the point of limitation in view of the revenue entries qua the tenancy of the suit land since 1970? 3. Whether the learned trial court is right to shift the onus on appellant/defendant to prove tenancy whereas presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record? 5. Mr. 2. Whether the learned court below has correctly decided the point of limitation in view of the revenue entries qua the tenancy of the suit land since 1970? 3. Whether the learned trial court is right to shift the onus on appellant/defendant to prove tenancy whereas presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record? 5. Mr. V.S. Rathour, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the material placed on record. 6. Mr. Neeraj Gupta has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. According to him, defendants or their father were never inducted as tenants by him. Defendants were tenants of different land. The settlement was carried out in the year 1974-75. He was not summoned at the time of settlement. He came to know about the wrong entries in the month of March, 2001 when defendants started causing interference over the suit land. He has denied the suggestion that defendants exchanged tenancy of the suit land with Khasra No. 504. 10. PW-2 Vipan Kumar has deposed that he knew the parties. The suit land was in ownership and possession of the plaintiff. Defendants never cultivated the suit land. 11. DW-1 Karam Chand has deposed that at the time of settlement, plaintiff was present on the spot. Entry qua his tenancy was made in the presence of plaintiff. According to him, written exchange deed was prepared. However, he could not produce the deed. Volunteered that the exchange of tenancy was incorporated in the revenue papers. The written deed was executed in Tehsil. It was written by the deed writer. 12. DW-2 Vidhi Chand has testified that plaintiff was present during the settlement. He has admitted that the plaintiff neither inducted the defendants nor their father as tenants over the suit land. Defendants have not paid any rent to the plaintiff in his presence. Settlement staff never summoned the plaintiff. He was not present at the time of settlement. 13. 12. DW-2 Vidhi Chand has testified that plaintiff was present during the settlement. He has admitted that the plaintiff neither inducted the defendants nor their father as tenants over the suit land. Defendants have not paid any rent to the plaintiff in his presence. Settlement staff never summoned the plaintiff. He was not present at the time of settlement. 13. DW-3 Rattan Lal, Reader to A.D.M. Dharmashala has produced the record of LR-V No. 102/D dated 25.11.1975. 14. According to Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 Ex.P-3, prior to settlement Khasra Nos. 370 and 376 were recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and Khasra No. 373 was recorded in the tenancy of Chuhru. Defendants have failed to prove the exchange. Defendants have not specified the date on which tenancy was changed with the suit land. No independent witness was examined to this effect. According to defendant No.1, exchange of the tenancy was incorporated in the revenue record. However, revenue record has not been produced to prove the exchange. It was only during settlement that names of defendants were recorded in the possessory column as non-occupancy tenants. Defendants have not placed any material on record that entries were made on the basis of some orders passed by the competent authority. DW-2 Vidhi Chand has admitted that plaintiff has neither inducted the defendants nor their father as tenants over the suit land. He has also admitted that settlement staff never summoned the plaintiff. Tenancy is a bilateral act. Defendants have not produced any evidence that they have paid any rent to the owner. Defendants have not proved the submission of application by the plaintiff. There is no material also on record to prove that Chuhru has ever relinquished his tenancy and has exchanged his land. 15. Mr. V.S. Rathour has placed reliance on Ex.D-1 order dated 20.3.1991. Fact of the matter is that this order was set aside by the Divisional Commissioner on 13.11.1998 vide Annexure P-6. DW-3 Rattan Lal has admitted that as per record, plaintiff never inducted the defendants or their father as tenants over Khasra Nos. 370 and 376. Regarding these Khasra numbers, plaintiff did not file LR-V form. The entry made in the Missal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid Ex.A-1 is not sufficient to prove the exchange over the suit land. It was for the defendants to prove the exchange. 370 and 376. Regarding these Khasra numbers, plaintiff did not file LR-V form. The entry made in the Missal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid Ex.A-1 is not sufficient to prove the exchange over the suit land. It was for the defendants to prove the exchange. It is reiterated that defendants have failed to prove that there was exchange of tenancy over Khasra No. 504 with the suit land. Plaintiff has duly proved that entries were changed illegally by the settlement staff without hearing him. 16. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 17. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 18. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.