JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Plaintiffs (appellants herein) have filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2003, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.3- CA/13 of 2003, titled as Nain Singh & others v. Jalam Singh, whereby judgment and decree dated 16.12.2002, passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.85/1 of 2001, titled as Nain Singh & others v. Jalam Singh, stands affirmed. 2. The appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Civil Court have no jurisdiction to go into the questions involved in the present case? 2. Whether the suit is barred by time? 3. Plaintiffs (appellants herein) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against defendant Jalam Singh (dead, represented by LRs) (respondent herein). Plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the suit land as mortgagees. Based on such right, challenge was laid to the entry in favour of the defendant as a non-occupancy tenant and subsequently as owner, by virtue of the provisions of H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff and proforma defendants are mortgagee in possession to the extent of two shares of the land comprised in Khasra No. 2308 measuring 11-13 bighas and plaintiff and defendant No.1, Ram Bhaj and Shupe are co-mortgagee in possession to the extent of one share. If so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether entries showing defendant No.1 as Gair Mourasi and lateron as owner in respect of the suit land are wrong? OPP 3. Whether suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4. Whether defendant No.1 became owner by grant of patta dated 23-8-1971? OPD 5. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the case? OPD 6. Relief. 5. Solely on the jurisdictional issue, in view of the provisions of the Act, the plaint was rejected. However, lower Appellate Court, while upholding such findings of fact, also answered Issue No.3, against the plaintiff. 6. OPD 5. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the case? OPD 6. Relief. 5. Solely on the jurisdictional issue, in view of the provisions of the Act, the plaint was rejected. However, lower Appellate Court, while upholding such findings of fact, also answered Issue No.3, against the plaintiff. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, Court is of the considered view that the questions law are no long res integra and the issue stands conclusively decided and settled by the Courts. 7. There is nothing on record to establish entry made in favour of the defendant, as a non-occupancy tenant, to be illegal, void or an act of fraud. Entry was recorded in the year 1969. Also plaintiffs have not been able to establish creation of any mortgage. Hence, in view of the statutory provisions, defendant rightly acquired title over the suit land. 8. In Rulia and others v. Roop Lal and others, 1992 (1) Sim.L.C. 132, the Court has held that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant, having been conclusively decided, under the Act, cannot be re-agitated before the Civil Court, in view of the statutory bar stipulated under Section 12 of the Act. 9. Period of limitation, so prescribed, for assailing an order passed under the Act, is one year. In the instant case the order, under the Act, was passed in the year 1973 and the suit was filed in the year 2001. 10. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.