JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2006 of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2005. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, for the convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants, for the convenience sake). According to the plaintiff, the suit land was owned and possessed by Vidya Devi widow of late Sh. Bhaskara Nand till her death. Upon the death of Vidya Devi, the plaintiff and Kedar Nath, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, succeeded to her estate in equal share being her next reversioners. However, Kedar Nath predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, in collusion with Revenue Officer, got proprietary rights of the suit land under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, conferred in his name vide mutation No. 548 dated 10.9.1982. These entries and mutation were without jurisdiction, null and void because Kedar Nath was never inducted as tenant at will. Some dispute arose between the plaintiff and Kedar Nath in the year 1992 with regard to use and occupation of the suit land. Defendant No. 1, being the Karta of the joint Hindu family, agreed to make necessary correction in the revenue papers regarding the possession and ownership of the plaintiff with regard to the suit land and executed affidavit on 9.9.1992. The plaintiff asked the defendants time and again to admit the claim of the plaintiff regarding suit land and make correction in the revenue record qua ownership and possession of the plaintiff but the defendants did not pay any heed to the request. In these circumstances, the civil suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants have admitted that the suit land was originally owned and possessed by Vidya Devi. Vidya Devi inducted Kedar Nath as tenant during her life time on payment of rent. The entries of rent were not challenged by the plaintiff during the life time of Vidya Devi nor any appeal filed under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, when proprietary rights were conferred upon Kedar Nath. 4. The plaintiff filed the replication. The issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 9.6.2003. The entries of rent were not challenged by the plaintiff during the life time of Vidya Devi nor any appeal filed under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, when proprietary rights were conferred upon Kedar Nath. 4. The plaintiff filed the replication. The issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 9.6.2003. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn.), Hamirpur, decreed the suit on 12.1.2005. The defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2005 before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dismissed the same on 7.6.2006, hence this regular second appeal. 5. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 25.04.2007: ?1. Whether the judgment of the learned court below can be sustained when it does not consider the question of limitation which is otherwise apparent from the pleadings of the parties? 2. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the controversy in the suit?? 6. Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, more particularly, the question of limitation. He then contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the controversy raised in the suit. On the other hand, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides and gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He testified that Vidya Devi was his Aunt and Kedar Nath was his real brother. Bhaskara Nand was the husband of Vidya Devi. He died prior to Vidya Devi and Vidya Devi died in the year 1956-57. He alongwith his brother Kedar nath succeeded to the estate of the Vidya Devi and after her death both of them came into possession of the suit land. Vidya Devi never inducted Kedar Nath or Joginder Kumar as tenant. He was not issued any notice at the time of the mutation. He never parted with the possession of the suit land. The dispute arose with the defendants after the death of his brother Kedar Nath. Vidya Devi never inducted Kedar Nath or Joginder Kumar as tenant. He was not issued any notice at the time of the mutation. He never parted with the possession of the suit land. The dispute arose with the defendants after the death of his brother Kedar Nath. Joginder Kumar tried to dispossess him from the suit land, however, he did not part with the possession. The defendant had executed affidavit mark ?X? qua the suit land, however, he did not got the revenue entries corrected as per the affidavit. Kedar Nath died in the year 1990-91. He denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that he used to render services to Vidya Devi and Vidya Devi had inducted Kedar Nath as tenant. He also denied the suggestion that Kedar Nath used to pay rent to Vidya Devi. The suit land was situated at two places. 9. PW-2 Dina Nath has testified that he has seen both the brothers cultivating the suit land. He was not aware that Kedar Nath has remained tenant of the suit land. 10. Defendant No. 1 has appeared as DW-1. He testified that he was in possession of the suit land. His father was tenant in the suit land and lateron he became owner of the same. The plaintiff never raised any objection when they were tenants. The plaintiff and Kedar Nath were living separately prior to 1956. The plaintiff has not raised any objection at the time when proprietary rights were conferred upon his father. He admitted in his cross-examination that he has done M.A. in two subjects. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PX dated 9.9.1992. He also admitted that he was not forced to execute the affidavit. Lateron, he stated that the affidavit was got executed from him forcibly. However, he did not move any application to cancel the affidavit. Vidya Devi was the owner of the suit land. The name of her husband was Bhaskara Nand. Vidya Devi was real Aunt of Gauri Dutt and Kedar Nath. She died issueless. According to him, Kedar Nath succeeded to Vidya Devi's property. Vidya Devi had inducted his father Kedar Nath as tenant during her life time. He could not produce any receipt of rent paid to Vidya Devi. He admitted that he was not present at the time of attestation of the mutation in favour of his father. She died issueless. According to him, Kedar Nath succeeded to Vidya Devi's property. Vidya Devi had inducted his father Kedar Nath as tenant during her life time. He could not produce any receipt of rent paid to Vidya Devi. He admitted that he was not present at the time of attestation of the mutation in favour of his father. Gauri Dutt was also not present at that time. He was not aware that the Land Reforms Officer had issued any notice to Gauri Dutt. He has not led evidence to prove that his father and Gauri Dutt were living separately since 1956. His father and Gauri Dutt were joint owner of the land prior to consolidation. He was not aware when the consolidation proceedings commenced. The plaintiff was serving in the Army. He retired in the year 1974-75. 11. According to the jamabandi for the year 1957-58 Ext. P-5, prior to the consolidation Kh. No. 1361 min, 1730/685, 1715/686 and 1729/685 were jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff, Kedar Nath and Vidya Devi in equal shares. It is established from the pre-consolidated revenue record that Kedar Nath was co-owner. If he was coowner, he could not become tenant and owner at the same time. There is no tangible evidence placed on record that joint holding was ever partitioned before the consolidation in the year 1962-63. According to the jamabandies for the year 1957-58 Ext. P-9 to P-16, the suit land alongwith some other land was in joint ownership and possession of plaintiff, Kedar Nath the predecessor in interest of defendants, Vidya Devi widow of Bhaskara Nand and other co-sharers. Vidya Devi was recorded as co-owner, but she was not recorded in exclusive possession or joint possession of any portion of the suit land or other joint land. Kedar Nath was never shown as tenant under Vidya Devi qua the suit land or any other land. Vidya Devi died on 22.8.1958. Her death was got registered in the month of June, 1980 i.e. after lapse of 22 years. The defendants have failed to prove that Kedar Nath was inducted as non-occupancy tenant of the suit land by Vidya Devi. There is no evidence on record to suggest even remotely as to what rent was paid by Kedar Nath to Vidya Devi. The tenancy is a bilateral act. The defendants have failed to prove that Kedar Nath was inducted as non-occupancy tenant of the suit land by Vidya Devi. There is no evidence on record to suggest even remotely as to what rent was paid by Kedar Nath to Vidya Devi. The tenancy is a bilateral act. There has to be some bilateral agreement or some understanding or payment of rent to determine tenancy. 12. According to Misal Hakiyat for the year 1962-63 Ext. P-6, Kedar Nath the predecessor in interest of the defendants, has been recorded in possession as non-occupancy tenant but column No. 9 relating to rent does not show payment of rent in favour of Vidya Devi. Rather, column No. 9 of Misal Hakiyat for the year 1962-63 Ext. P-6 is totally blank. In Ext. P-15 also, in column No. 9 of the rent, it is recited ?Jimgi Gair Marusi Lagan Mashkuk?. The expression ?Mashkuk? means doubtful. The defendants could not prove the payment of rent. Since Kedar Nath was co-owner of the suit land alongwith the plaintiff, the Land Reforms Officer, could not confer proprietary rights vide mutation No. 548 dated 10.9.1982. Moreover, the plaintiff was never issued any notice by the Land Reforms Officer while conferring the proprietary rights upon Kedar Nath. 13. Mr. R.K.Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, has argued that the vestment was automatic. However, the vestment may be automatic if the person is admitted or proved to be tenant in respect of the land in question under the land owner. Both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the entries made with regard to non-occupancy tenancy of Kedar Nath were fictitious. Rather Kedar Nath was not entitled for conferment of proprietary rights being co-owner with the plaintiff. Thus, the jamabandi for the year 1978-79 Ext. P-7 and Ext. D-2 copy of jamabandi for the year 1988-89, copy of jamabandi for the year 1988-89 and jamabandi for the year 1957-58 Ext. P8 and P-9 relating to mutation No. 548 are to be discarded since the defendants have failed to prove any bilateral agreement of tenancy or liability to pay rent. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, has also argued that there is presumption of truth attached to the revenue entries. However, it is settled law that the same are rebuttable. P8 and P-9 relating to mutation No. 548 are to be discarded since the defendants have failed to prove any bilateral agreement of tenancy or liability to pay rent. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, has also argued that there is presumption of truth attached to the revenue entries. However, it is settled law that the same are rebuttable. The entries made in favour of Kedar Nath showing him as tenant have been successfully rebutted by the plaintiff by leading cogent and reliable evidence that infact, he alongwith Kedar Nath was the co-owner in possession of the suit land. 14. The matter is required to be considered from another perspective. The proprietary rights were conferred upon Kedar Nath vide mutation No. 548 Ext. P-2. It was attested on 10.9.1982. According to mutation No. 548, Kedar Nath, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and Gauri Dutt were recorded as co-owners of the suit land. Since Gauri Dutt plaintiff was recorded as co-owner of the suit land, it is not explained by the defendants as to why said mutation was sanctioned and attested in his absence. Notice was required to be issued to the plaintiff at the time of attestation of mutation in order to enable him to raise objections. There is no contemporaneous material available on record to suggest even remotely that the plaintiff was ever heard before the mutations were attested in favour of Kedar Nath while conferring proprietary rights upon him. 15. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, has drawn the attention of the Court to Ext. PX, affidavit dated 9.9.1992. DW-1 has admitted that the affidavit was prepared out of his free will and without any pressure. He has tried to explain that it did not pertain to the suit land. It is recital of Ext. PX that it is in respect of the suit land whereby defendant No. 1 has agreed to make necessary correction in the revenue record. The facts admitted in the affidavit clearly establish that there was dispute with regard to the suit land regarding entry relating to ownership and possession. 16. Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, has argued that the suit was barred by limitation. According to him, the plaintiff Gauri Dutt has obtained copy of rapat Ext. D-6 on 20.12.1990 and the suit was filed only on 20.3.1993. The plaintiff has filed the suit within three years after the receipt of the rapat Ext. D-6. 16. Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, has argued that the suit was barred by limitation. According to him, the plaintiff Gauri Dutt has obtained copy of rapat Ext. D-6 on 20.12.1990 and the suit was filed only on 20.3.1993. The plaintiff has filed the suit within three years after the receipt of the rapat Ext. D-6. It has also come in the statement of PW-1 that he has tried to settle the dispute with the defendants and when he failed to do so, he filed the Civil Suit before the competent court of law within three years from the date of threat of his dispossession from the suit land. 17. Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, has further argued that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The Court, as noticed hereinabove, has noticed that the conferment of proprietary rights on Kedar Nath was wholly without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Besides, the Land Records Officer was required to comply with the mandatory provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Thus, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try and decide the lis between the parties. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 18. Consequently, there is no merit in this regular second appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs.