JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. 1. Present Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2001 titled Charan Dass vs. The Secretary (Revenue) to Government of H.P. whereby learned Additional District Judge Mandi had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court announced in Civil Suit No. 91 of 1999 titled Charan Dass vs. The Secretary (Revenue). 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that plaintiff Charan Dass filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction pleaded therein that land comprised in Khata No. 34 Khatauni No. 79, Khasra No. 1078/310 measuring 0-2-10 bighas was in ownership of Swami Ramji and adjoining land is owned by Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is pleaded that plaintiff vide sale deed No. 160 dated 11.3.1987 purchased Khasra No. 1078/310 measuring 0-2-10 bighas from Swami Ramji for consideration amount of Rs. 2800/- (Rupees two thousand eight hundred only) and mutation No. 215 dated 19.3.1991 was sanctioned. It is pleaded that revenue staff while preparing jamabandi for the year 1994-95 only recorded gair mumkin room on land measuring 0-2-0 biswas of land and courtyard which was vacant was not recorded. It is pleaded that revenue officer has no power to reduce the ownership of plaintiff by way of arbitrary decision. It is pleaded that no notice was issued to plaintiff. Prayer for decree the suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable in present form and plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. It is also pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and no valid notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendants. It is further pleaded that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as barred by Section 171 of H.P. Land Revenue Act. It is further pleaded that land adjoining to Khasra No. 1078/310 belongs to State of H.P. It is pleaded that Swami Ramji was allotted the land measuring 0-2-0 bighas in Khasra No. 310/2. It is pleaded that thereafter plaintiff purchased the land vide sale deed No. 160 dated 11.3.1987 from Swami Ramji. It is further pleaded that land adjoining to Khasra No. 1078/310 belongs to State of H.P. It is pleaded that Swami Ramji was allotted the land measuring 0-2-0 bighas in Khasra No. 310/2. It is pleaded that thereafter plaintiff purchased the land vide sale deed No. 160 dated 11.3.1987 from Swami Ramji. It is pleaded that inadvertently entry of this land has been shown as 0-2-10 bighas instead of 0-2-0 bighas which was later on corrected. It is pleaded that plaintiff had constructed a Spring View Guest House over Khasra No. 1079/310. It is pleaded that plaintiff had encroached upon the government land by way of raising unauthorized construction which was detected by revenue agency and encroachment case was made against the plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff was given due opportunity to defend the case as per Section 163 of Land Revenue Act. It is pleaded that thereafter plaintiff put his appearance before A.C. 1st Grade and he willfully did not appear before A.C. 1st Grade Karsog and was proceeded exparte and ejectment order was passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade Karsog. It is pleaded that thereafter plaintiff did not file any appeal and order of A.C. 1st Grade attained the stage of finality. It is pleaded that thereafter on dated 26.10.1997 Naib Tehsildar Karsog with the help of police ejected the plaintiff from unauthorized possession by demolishing the unauthorized construction vide rapat roznamcha No. 108 dated 26.10.1997. It is pleaded that now the plaintiff has again encroached upon Khasra No. 21/3 measuring 0-2-15 bigha and Khasra No.1079/310/2 by constructing bathroom and latrine and encroachment proceedings against the plaintiff are pending. It is pleaded that only 0-2-0 bighas of land was allotted to Swami Ramji as Nautor which was later on purchased by plaintiff. It is pleaded that revenue entries have been corrected as per law and further pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the civil suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 23.6.2000:- 1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of land comprised in Khata No. 34 Khatauni No. 79 Khasra No. 1078/310 measuring 0-2-10 bighas? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in present form? Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of land comprised in Khata No. 34 Khatauni No. 79 Khasra No. 1078/310 measuring 0-2-10 bighas? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in present form? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action? OPD 6. Whether no valid notice under Section 80 CPC served upon the defendants as alleged? OPD 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether Swami Ramji had been allotted land comprised in Khasra No. 310/2 measuring 0-2-0 bighas for construction of Goddess temple if so its effect? OPD 9. Relief. 5. Findings on learned trial Court on issues were as follow:- Issue No. 1 Partly yes. Plaintiff was held owner In possession qua Khasra No. 1078/310 measuring 0-2-0 bighas. Issue No. 2 Yes. Defendants restrained from interfering in land measuring 0-2-0 bighas. Relief of injunction also granted in favour of plaintiff and against defendants that defendants will not interfere in the land measuring 0-0-10 bighas except in due course of law. Issue No. 3 Partly yes qua land measuring 0-0-10 bighas. Issue No. 4 Partly yes qua land measuring 0-0-10 bighas. Issue No. 5 Partly yes qua land measuring 0-0-10 bighas Issue No. 6 No. It was held that permission under Section 80(2) CPC sought. Issue No. 7 No. It was held that controversy inter se parties is relating to civil rights and Court has jurisdiction. Issue No. 8 Yes. Relief The suit of plaintiff was partly decreed with costs as per operative portion of judgment. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court appellant filed civil appeal No. 54 of 2001 titled Charan Dass vs. The Secretary (Revenue) and learned first Appellate Court affirmed the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by appellant. 7. Parties examined following oral witnesses in supported of their case:- S. No. Name of witness PW1 Charan Dass PW2 Nand Lal DW1 N.L. Verdhan DW2 Krishan Kumar DW3 Devi Singh DW4 Tek Chand 8. 7. Parties examined following oral witnesses in supported of their case:- S. No. Name of witness PW1 Charan Dass PW2 Nand Lal DW1 N.L. Verdhan DW2 Krishan Kumar DW3 Devi Singh DW4 Tek Chand 8. Parties produced following documentary evidence in support of their case:- S. No. Description Ext.DW2/A Copy of order of nautor land Ext.DW2/B Copy of form of patta Ext.DW3/A Copy of report Ext.DW3/B Copy of report Ext.DW4/A Copy of report Ext.DW4/B Copy of jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ext.DW4/C Copy of Nakal Jamabandi 9. Thereafter feeling aggrieved by judgments and decrees passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court appellant has filed present Regular Second Appeal No. 150 of 2003 titled Charan Dass vs. State of H.P. Hon’ble High Court admitted the present appeal on the following substantial questions of law on dated 24.4.2003: 1. Whether findings as recorded against appellant are vitiated on account of misreading and misappreciation of pleadings of the parties and material on record including pleadings and evidence? 2. Whether inferences and conclusions as drawn are neither supported by material on record nor by any provisions of law and the sale deed pertaining to sale in favour of appellant, as admitted by respondent has been misconstrued and misinterpreted? 3. Whether entries in revenue record pertaining to suit land on the basis of which sale deed was executed in favour of appellant as per sale deed No. 160 registered in office of Sub Registrar Karsog dated 11.3.1987 is legal and valid? 10. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Additional Advocate General and also perused the entire record carefully. 11. Oral Evidence adduced by parties 11.1 PW1 Charan Dass has stated that he has purchased the suit land from Swami Ramji measuring 2 biswas 10 biswansi for consideration amount of Rs. 2800/- (Rupees Two thousand eight hundred only). He has stated that possession was also given to him and mutation was also sanctioned in his favour. He has stated that no notice was given to him by revenue department when area was reduced. He has stated that copy of sale deed is mark X and copy of mutation is mark Y. In his cross examination he has admitted that he has purchased Khasra No. 1078/310. He has stated that no notice was given to him by revenue department when area was reduced. He has stated that copy of sale deed is mark X and copy of mutation is mark Y. In his cross examination he has admitted that he has purchased Khasra No. 1078/310. He has stated that he does not know that only two biswas of land was allotted to Swami Ramji by SDO Collector Sundernagar District Mandi in the year 1972. He has admitted that Khasra No. 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 1079/1, 1079/2, 1079/3 and 1079/4 were encroached by way of raising wall. He has admitted that bathroom and latrine have been constructed. He has admitted that encroachment case was instituted against him and he used to appear in the encroachment case. He has admitted that ejectment orders were passed against him. He has admitted that Naib Tehsildar had ordered that bathroom would be demolished. He has admitted that again in Khasra No. 1079/310/2 latrine and bathroom have been constructed and he has also admitted that in Khasra No. 1078/310 Spring View hotel has been constructed. He has denied suggestion that he has encroached 15 biswansi of land. He has admitted that fresh encroachment case is also pending against him. He has denied suggestion that he has filed a civil suit just to grab 10 biswansi of land owned by State of H.P. 11.2 PW2 Nand Lal has stated that 2½ biswas of land was purchased for consideration amount of Rs. 2800/- (Rupees two thousand eight hundred only) and further stated that mutation was also sanctioned. He has stated that he does not know how the vendor had purchased the land. He has denied suggestion that only two biswas of land was alienated to the vendee. 11.3 DW1 N.L. Verdhan Tehsildar Sarkaghat has stated that he remained Tehsildar w.e.f. September 1995 to January 1998. He has stated that report was submitted by halqua patwari that Charan Dass appellant had purchased two biswas of land but due to bonafide mistake the ownership was recorded to the extent of 0-2-10 bighas. He has stated that halqua patwari had recommended that correction was essential. He has further stated that thereafter report of Patwari was verified by field Kanungo. He has stated that thereafter he has approved the correction. He has stated that he does not know when nautor land was allotted to Charan Dass. He has stated that halqua patwari had recommended that correction was essential. He has further stated that thereafter report of Patwari was verified by field Kanungo. He has stated that thereafter he has approved the correction. He has stated that he does not know when nautor land was allotted to Charan Dass. 11.4 DW2 Krishan Kumar record keeper in SDM Office Karsog has stated that he is posted as record keeper in SDM office since August 2000 and he has brought the original record. He has stated that application for allotment of nautor land was filed on which order Ext.DW2/A was passed which is correct as per original record. He has stated that copy of allotment order is Ext.DW2/B. 11.5 DW3 Devi Singh field Kanungo has stated that he was posted as Kanungo since June 1994 and further stated that Tattapani Patwar Circle was under his control. He has stated that he had seen the suit property where he found that Charan Dass had encroached the government land and thereafter halqua Patwari had prepared the encroachment file and he visited the spot for verification. He has stated that his report is Ext.DW3/A which is in his hand writing and is correct as per original record. He has stated that ejectment orders were passed against the appellant and report is Ext.DW3/B. He has stated that appellant has encroached 0-0-19 bighas of land. He has admitted that nautor land which was allotted to Swami Ramji was adjoining to government land which was grazing land. 11.6 DW4 Tek Chand Patwari has stated that he was posted as Patwari at Tattapani w.e.f. October 1995 and further stated that encroachment on the part of appellant was found upon the government land. He has stated that earlier also ejectment orders were passed against the appellant. He has further stated that after passing of ejectment order appellant had again encroached the government land. He has stated that report is Ext.DW4/A which is in his hand and is correct as per original record. He has proved documents Ext.DW4/B and Ext.DW4/C. He has stated that nautor land was allotted to Swami Ramji. He has stated that he does not know that in case of any correction in revenue record permission of District Collector or decision of civil Court is essential. Self stated that matter was reported to A.C. II Grade and thereafter order of Assistant Collector was complied. He has stated that he does not know that in case of any correction in revenue record permission of District Collector or decision of civil Court is essential. Self stated that matter was reported to A.C. II Grade and thereafter order of Assistant Collector was complied. He has stated that report of correction is submitted by Halqua Patwari and thereafter same was verified by Field Kanungo and thereafter permission was granted by A.C. II Grade. Plaintiff did not lead any rebuttal evidence. Findings upon Point No. 1 of Substantial Question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court:- 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that findings recorded against the appellant are vitiated on account of misreading and misappreciation of pleadings of the parties and material on record including pleadings and evidence is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the pleadings of parties and Court has also carefully perused the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by parties. It is proved on record that Swami Ramji filed an application No. 46 dated 30.4.1970 for allotment of Nautor land for construction of Goddess temple. It is proved on record that thereafter on dated 9.6.1972 Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi H.P. had granted 0- 2-0 bighas of land situated in Muhal Tattapani, Tehsil Karsog District Mandi in favour of Swami Ramji. It is also proved on record that thereafter grant of nautor land measuring 0-2-0 bighas was issued in favour of Swami Ramji subject to conditions. It is also proved on record that due to clerical mistake in jamabandi for the year 1984-85 the area of nautor granted was mentioned as 0-2-10 bighas instead of 0-2-0 bighas in the name of Swami Ramji. It is also proved on record that thereafter in the year 1989-90 the mistake was detected and same was rectified and it was ordered that area 0-2-0 would be recorded instead of 0-2-10. It is also proved on record that thereafter sale deed was executed by Swami Ramji in favour of appellant Charan Dass in consideration amount of Rs. 2800/- (Rupees two thousand eight hundred only) and there is recital in sale deed that area measuring 0-2-10 was alienated by vendor in favour of vendee. It is also proved on record that thereafter ejectment orders were passed against the appellant by revenue officer. 2800/- (Rupees two thousand eight hundred only) and there is recital in sale deed that area measuring 0-2-10 was alienated by vendor in favour of vendee. It is also proved on record that thereafter ejectment orders were passed against the appellant by revenue officer. It is well settled law that vendor cannot alienate the land more than his ownership right. It is proved on record that Swami Ramji acquired title of 0-2-0 bighas of land only in Mohal Tattapani Tehsil Karsog District Mandi as per order of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi H.P. passed on dated 9.6.1972. It is proved on record that nautor land was granted in favour of Swami Ramji measuring 0-2-0 bighas by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi H.P. It is held that title of only 0-2-0 bighas acquired by Swami Ramji in nautor land vide order dated 9.6.1972 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi H.P. It is held that in revenue record also the title of Swami Ramji should have been recorded as 0-2-0 bighas. It is proved on record that thereafter in jamabandis the title of Swami Ramji was recorded as 0-2-10 bighas instead of 0-2-0 bighas. It was held in case reported in 1994(2) S.L.J. 1735 (Punjab & Haryana) titled Kartar Kaur vs. Amarjit Singh and others that vendor could not pass a better title to vendee than he himself has. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that in jamabandi for the year 1984-85 area in ownership of Swami Ramji was to the extent of 0-2-10 and on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1984-85 Swami Ramji was owner of 0-2-10 bighas of land and thereafter he was legally competent to alienate 0-2-10 bighas of land by way of sale deed in favour of appellant is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that entries in jamabandis are not proof of title. It is well settled law that jamabandi’s entries are only prepared for fiscal purpose and they create no title. See Guru Amarjeet Singh vs. Rattan Chand and Others, AIR 1994 SC 227 and Jattu Ram vs. Hakam Singh, SLJ 1994 (1) SC 68. 14. It is well settled law that entries in jamabandis are not proof of title. It is well settled law that jamabandi’s entries are only prepared for fiscal purpose and they create no title. See Guru Amarjeet Singh vs. Rattan Chand and Others, AIR 1994 SC 227 and Jattu Ram vs. Hakam Singh, SLJ 1994 (1) SC 68. 14. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that mutation was sanctioned in favour of appellant to the extent of 0-2-10 bighas of land and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that mutation does not confer or extinguish any title in suit property. See Mohammad Iqbal vs. Government of Indian and Others, 1996 (4) SLJ 2982 HP. Also See Mohar Singh vs. Manjoo, 1997 (1) SLJ 304 HP. See Naval Shankar Ishwar Lal Dave and Another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 1496 . It is held that Swami Ramji was legally competent to execute sale deed in favour of appellant to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas of land. It is further held that Swami Ramji was not legally entitled to execute sale deed in favour of appellant to the extent of 0-2-10 bighas. It is also held that sale deed to the extent of 10 biswansi in favour of appellant is illegal, null and void abinitio. It is held that only 0-2-0 bighas of land was allotted to Swami Ramji vendor by way of nautor by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi H.P. vide order dated 9.6.1972 Ext.DW2/A placed on record and it is further held that Swami Ramji was legally competent to execute sale deed in favour of appellant to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas only. It is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. Even DW1Tehsildar N.K. Verdhan, DW2 Krishan Chand record keeper, DW3 Devi Singh Field Kanungo and DW4 Tek Chand Patwari have stated in positive manner that only 0-2-0 bighas of land was allotted to Swami Ramji by way of nautor allotment. Testimonies of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW3 are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW4. Testimonies of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW3 are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW4. It is held that testimonies of PW1 Charan Dass and PW2 Nand Lal are not sufficient to disbelieve the testimonies of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW4 because PW1 Charan Dass vendee and PW2 Nand Lal were not present when 0-2-0 bighas of land was allotted in favour of Swami Ramji by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi on dated 9.6.1972. Appellant did not adduce any positive cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that 0-2-10 bighas of land was allotted to Swami Ramji by any competent authority of law by way of nautor land. On the contrary it is proved by way of positive evidence that only 0-2-0 bighas of land situated in Mohal Tattapani Tehsil Karsog District Mandi was allotted to Swami Ramji by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi H.P. on dated 9.6.1972. Hence point No. 1 of substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. Findings on point No. 2 of substantial question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that sale deed in favour of appellant has been misconstrued and misinterpreted by learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that only 0-2-0 bighas of land was allotted to Swami Ramji by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi vide document Ext.DW2/A on dated 9.6.1972 and it is proved on record that thereafter allotment letter was issued in favour of Swami Ramji Ext.DW2/B wherein only 0-2-0 bighas of land was allotted to Swami Ramji in nautor. It is proved on record that Swami Ramji was owner of 0-2-0 bighas of land only. It is held that Swami Ramji was only competent to execute the sale deed to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas of land and it is further held that sale deed exceeding allotment area is illegal and void abinitio. It is proved on record that Swami Ramji was owner of 0-2-0 bighas of land only. It is held that Swami Ramji was only competent to execute the sale deed to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas of land and it is further held that sale deed exceeding allotment area is illegal and void abinitio. It is held that appellant has acquired title in suit property to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas of land and it is further held that through sale deed dated 11.3.1987 appellant acquired the title to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas only and it is held that appellant did not acquire title to the extent of 0-2-10 bighas of land. It is held that learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court have rightly interpreted the area of nautor land allotted by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi (H.P.) and it is held that learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court have rightly interpreted the sale deed in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts. It is well settled law that concurrent findings of fact is conclusive unless it is arrived at by committing an error of law or of procedure. See Gappulal vs. Thakurji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji and Another, AIR 1969 SC 1291 ; Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and Another vs. Pratima Maity and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4351 ; R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Veswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another, AIR 2003 SC 4548 . Point No.2 of substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. Findings on point No. 3 of substantial question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that entry in revenue record pertaining to suit land on the basis of sale deed No. 160 dated 11.03.1987 is legal and valid is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that appellant had purchased the land from Swami Ramji. It is proved on record that Swami Ramji was owner of suit land to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas of land as per grant of nautor land granted by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi for construction of Goddess temple. It is proved on record that appellant had purchased the land from Swami Ramji. It is proved on record that Swami Ramji was owner of suit land to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas of land as per grant of nautor land granted by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar District Mandi for construction of Goddess temple. It is held that Swami Ramji was legally competent to execute the sale deed after the expiry of 15 years from the date of allotment in favour of appellant to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas only. It is held that sale deed to the extent of 10 biswansi in favour of appellant is illegal null and void. It is held that only sale deed in favour of appellant to the extent of 0-2- 0 bighas is valid operative and binding upon defendants on the concept that vendor could not pass a better title in favour of vendee than he himself possessed. It is held that Swami Ramji had acquired the title to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas of suit land only situated in Mohal Tattapani Tehsil Karsog District Mandi H.P. and it is further held that Swami Ramji was competent to execute the sale deed in favour of appellant to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas only. It is held that sale deed to the extent of 0-2-0 bighas in favour of appellant is valid operative and binding upon the defendants. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that no notice was given to appellant by A.C. 2nd Grade when correction was ordered and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned because learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court have passed the decree of injunction in favour of appellant Charan Dass and against the defendants to the effect that defendants would not interfere in excess land measuring 0-0-10 bighas except in due course of law. Point No.3 of substantial question of law is decided accordingly. 18. In view of above findings it is held that judgments and decrees passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court are in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts. Appeal filed by appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Point No.3 of substantial question of law is decided accordingly. 18. In view of above findings it is held that judgments and decrees passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court are in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts. Appeal filed by appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs. The Registrar (Judicial) will prepare decree sheet as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. File of learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of this judgment and decree. Appeal stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.