JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., dated 26.8.2002, passed in Civil Appeal No. 9-G/2000. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 & 2, Draumpti Devi (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), has instituted suit for possession against the predecessor-ininterest of appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), namely, Purshotam Chand. The suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from its previous owner Smt. Kunti Devi vide sale deed dated 28.7.1960. Kunti challenged the sale on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and for want of consideration. It was dismissed. After the sale, Kunti continued in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff was constrained to file suit for possession which was decreed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kangra on 12.8.1984 on payment of Rs. 5000/-. The plaintiff obtained possession of the suit land after payment. However, in the revenue record, the defendant Purshotam Chand (since deceased) was recorded in possession as Chakotadar over the land measuring 360 kanals 4 marlas land owned by Smt. Kunti, including the suit land. Kunti never inducted the defendant as Chakotadar over the suit land. In the garb of managing her properties, the defendant fraudulently and by misrepresentation in collusion with the revenue staff started getting himself recorded in possession of land in a phased manner. Initially, he got himself recorded in possession over 30 kanals and 6 marlas of land, without payment of any rent to Kunti Devi. Thereafter, he got himself recorded as Chakotadar on payment of Rs. 50/-, firstly, over 130 kanals 11 marlas and then over 210 kanals 11 marlas and ultimately over the entire 360 kanals 4 marlas on payment of the same rent of Rs. 50/-. The entries made in favour of defendant were only paper entries. Smt. Kunti also discovered this fraud when she filed suit No. 206/75 in the Court of Sub Judge, Kangra, challenging the entries wrongly recording defendant as Chakotadar over the entire land measuring 360 kanals 4 marlas, which include the suit land. 50/-. The entries made in favour of defendant were only paper entries. Smt. Kunti also discovered this fraud when she filed suit No. 206/75 in the Court of Sub Judge, Kangra, challenging the entries wrongly recording defendant as Chakotadar over the entire land measuring 360 kanals 4 marlas, which include the suit land. The defendant instead of contesting the suit purchased the land of Smt. Kunti minus the land which was already sold by her to the plaintiff and filed application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC stating therein that he had purchased the suit land on 16.12.1978. In view of this, the suit filed by Kunti had become infructuous. The defendant did not contest his tenancy rights over 133 kanals of land which the plaintiff had purchased from Smt. Kunti out of the 360 kanals 4 marlas for which suit was filed. Thereafter, the defendant instead of getting mutation of sale pertaining to 227 kanals 4 marlas of land purchased by him from Smt. Kunti got mutation of entire 360 kanals 4 marlas sanctioned and attested in his favour on the strength of wrong entries under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rules framed thereunder by suppressing the factum of purchasing 227 kanals 4 marlas of land out of this land. The mutation was sanctioned by AC IInd Grade, who was not competent to do so under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 3. The suit was contested by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, namely, Purshotam Chand. He has denied that plaintiff was owner of the suit land. According to him, he has been coming in possession of the suit land alongwith other land as tenant at will on payment of Chakota of Rs. 50/- per year prior to the sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and with the enforcement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and Rules made thereunder. The defendant has become full owner of the suit land and mutation to this effect was also sanctioned and attested in his favour in the presence of the plaintiff by the Revenue Officer after due enquiry. He has made alternative prayer that in case he was not held tenant over the suit land, in that eventuality, he has become owner by way of adverse possession. He has made alternative prayer that in case he was not held tenant over the suit land, in that eventuality, he has become owner by way of adverse possession. He has shown his complete ignorance about any suit filed by Kunti against the plaintiff but denied that suit land was ever delivered to the plaintiff. 4. The replication was filed. The learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dehra, framed the issues. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 29.11.1999. The defendants, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999. The learned Addl. District Judge, Kangra (II), dismissed the same on 26.8.2002. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 16.10.2003: “1. Whether the statement of PW-3 Smt. Kunti Devi amounts to admission of tenancy to the effect that rent was settled but was not paid? 2. Whether the Civil Courts had jurisdiction in the matter to decide the case in view of the point of tenancy and relationship of tenants and landlord involved in the case with respect to agricultural land?” 6. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants with Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that PW-4 Smt. Kunti Devi has made admission of tenancy to the effect that rent was settled but not paid. He also argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. On the other hand, Mr. K..D.Sood, Sr. Advocate, appearing with Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 7. Since all the substantial questions of law are inter-connected, hence are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of evidence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 9. PW-1 Rasila Ram has appeared as General Power of Attorney of Draumpti Devi. He has proved General Power of Attorney Ext. P-1. According to him, he has purchased land in the name of his wife in the year 1960. Kanungo, Patwari and Chowkidar were present on the spot when he took over the possession of the land. 9. PW-1 Rasila Ram has appeared as General Power of Attorney of Draumpti Devi. He has proved General Power of Attorney Ext. P-1. According to him, he has purchased land in the name of his wife in the year 1960. Kanungo, Patwari and Chowkidar were present on the spot when he took over the possession of the land. PW-3 Uttam Chand deposed that he knew the parties. Smt. Kunti used to cultivate the land herself. The defendant was not tenant of Kunti Devi. PW-4 Kunti Devi deposed that Purshotam has never paid any galla to her. Her mother-in-law used to cultivate the land. He died 20 years back. She was thrown out of the house. She denied the suggestion in cross-examination that she was paid galla. No cash was paid to her though admitted that chakotta was agreed upon but never paid. She did not know even what was the chakotta. PW-5 Khem Raj deposed in his examination-in-chief that Kunti Devi has never given any land to Purshotam on chakotta. 10. DW-1 Purshotam deposed that he used to pay Rs. 50/- towards chakotta. Now, he has become owner of the suit land. In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he has got no agreement qua chakotta. No agreement was prepared qua chakotta. He did not know whether any entry was made in the roznamcha or girdawari. He did not know about the total measurement of the land. DW-2 Nikka Ram deposed that he has seen the suit land. He had seen the possession of Purshotam since his childhood. DW-3 Prem Chand deposed that he had also seen the suit land. Earlier Kunti Devi was in possession of the same. She used to get the land cultivated through Purshotam. Purshotam was tenant and thereafter he became owner. He also admitted in his crossexamination that Purshotam has now ploughed the land. Kunti Devi used to get the land cultivated through them. DW-4 Sumant deposed that they were in possession of the suit land. Earlier, they used to cultivate the land after paying chakotta. The total land was 360 kanals. There was no custom of obtaining receipt. He was not aware that Purshotam was ever inducted as tenant by Kunti Devi. 11. The case of the defendant, precisely, before the Courts below was that tenancy was created in his favour by Smt. Kunti Devi. Earlier, they used to cultivate the land after paying chakotta. The total land was 360 kanals. There was no custom of obtaining receipt. He was not aware that Purshotam was ever inducted as tenant by Kunti Devi. 11. The case of the defendant, precisely, before the Courts below was that tenancy was created in his favour by Smt. Kunti Devi. According to him, he was paying chakotta of Rs. 50/- since the year 1945. However, the fact of the matter is that he has not produced any documentary evidence, the terms of the agreement, whereby he was inducted as tenant in the year 1945. There is no contemporaneous material available on record except the bald statement made by defendant as DW-1 to this effect. The defendant has not produced any rent receipt or any other documentary evidence showing payment of rent. The statement made by DW-4 Sumant to the effect that there was no custom of obtaining the receipt in the area, cannot be accepted. Kunti Devi has categorically denied that defendant has ever paid any chakotta. No suggestion was put to her that she has inducted defendant as tenant over the suit land on payment of chakotta of Rs. 50/- in the year 1945. Kunti Devi has challenged the revenue entries showing defendant as chakotadar in Civil Suit No. 206/1975. The defendant instead of contesting the suit has purchased the entire land and suit became infructuous. No suggestion was put to her while she appeared as PW-4 about the stand taken by her in Civil Suit No. 206 of 1975 was not correct. The entire oral as well as documentary evidence is required to be seen as to whether Kunti Devi has created any tenancy in favour of defendant. The stray admission made by Smt. Kunti in her crossexamination is not conclusive proof of the creation of tenancy in favour of the defendant. 12. The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that tenancy of suit land was created in the year 1945 on payment of rent of Rs. 50/-. In jamabandi prior to the year 1951-52, Kunti Devi has been recorded to be self cultivating the suit land. The first entry in favour of the defendant over land measuring 30 kanals 6 marlas, out of total 360 kanals 5 marlas, without payment of any rent, had appeared in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52 (Ext. P-15). 50/-. In jamabandi prior to the year 1951-52, Kunti Devi has been recorded to be self cultivating the suit land. The first entry in favour of the defendant over land measuring 30 kanals 6 marlas, out of total 360 kanals 5 marlas, without payment of any rent, had appeared in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52 (Ext. P-15). How this entry was changed has not been explained. No rapat roznamcha or order passed by the competent revenue officer has been placed on record. The defendant, while appearing as DW-1 has admitted that no entry was made in rapat roznamcha or in girdawari. In the next jamabandi for the year 1954-55, Ext. P-16, the area under the cultivatory possession has been increased from 30 kanals 6 marlas to 210 kanals 11 marlas on payment of chakotta of Rs. 50/-. These entries have been repeated in the jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (Ext. P-17). However, in the subsequent jamabandi for the year 1963-64, Ext. P-18, the area under the cultivation of the defendant has been increased from 210 kanals 11 marlas to the entire land measuring 360 kanals 4 marlas on the payment of Rs. 50/- per year. There is no explanation in the jamabandi for the year 1954-55, Ext. P-16 and for the year 1963-64, Ext. P-18 as to how and under what circumstances the previous entries were changed and the area under the cultivatory possession of the defendant kept on increasing. In case he had been inducted as tenant over 360 kanals 4 marlas, he should have reported the matter to the revenue officers instead of getting the revenue entries changed without any authority of law from time to time. The entry was required to be made in rapat roznamcha and orders were also required to be passed by the competent revenue officer. These entries are thus doubtful and have rightly been discarded by the Courts below. 13. Smt. Kunti Devi had become widow at very young age. She was issueless. The defendant was the first cousin of her husband. He has taken the advantage of his close relationship. Infact, the defendant has manipulated the revenue entries in his favour without the consent and knowledge of Kunti Devi. The entries made after jamabandi for the year 1951-52 have been rebutted by the evidence placed on record. 14. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. The defendant was the first cousin of her husband. He has taken the advantage of his close relationship. Infact, the defendant has manipulated the revenue entries in his favour without the consent and knowledge of Kunti Devi. The entries made after jamabandi for the year 1951-52 have been rebutted by the evidence placed on record. 14. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate has vehemently argued that the proprietary rights were conferred vide order dated 7.5.1979 Ext. DY. However, the fact of the matter is that no proprietary rights could be conferred upon the defendant since he could not prove creation of tenancy in his favour by Kunti Devi. The orders passed by A.C. Ist Grade, were without jurisdiction. Though, he has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chuniya Devi Vrs. Jindu Ram, reported in 1991 SLC (1) 223, however, the fact remains that the orders passed by AC Ist Grade on 7.5.1979, Ext. DY were without following the fundamental procedure prescribed and also in violation of the mandatory provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Even in copy of Missal Haquiat Ext. D-9, prepared during settlement in the year 1976, in the column of rent, no rent is shown payable in respect of the suit land. The Civil Court had the jurisdiction and Section 112 of the Act is not attracted in the present case, as argued by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate. The plea of adverse possession, though taken, but no evidence was led to prove the ingredients of adverse possession. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any.