JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012 rendered by the District Judge, Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2011. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit seeking partition of the half share of the suit property. The suit property is one “Chandan Kothi” situated at Dalhousie, District Chamba comprising Khasra Nos. 19/ 19-1, 20/1 and 22, Khatauni No. 294, Khata No. 152 min and Khasra Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and Khatauni No. 295 situated at Mohal Jandrighat Road, Dalhousie, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba. According to the plaintiff, he was in physical possession of the houses, which form the part of disputed property. According to him, in the month of April, 1993, defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for convenience sake) tried to dispossess him. Thereafter, he wanted to get his share in the disputed property separated. 3. The defendants filed written statement-cum-counter claim. They have taken preliminary objections to the effect that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. They have denied the ownership of the plaintiff and have claimed absolute ownership over the disputed property. The defendants have pleaded that the disputed property has been transferred in favour of defendant No.1 (since deceased) and predecessor of defendant Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Arun Kumar Kapoor vide consent decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, at Bombay on 23.4.1954. The disputed property was transferred in favour of Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor, subject to the proviso that late Sh. Durga Das Kapoor, grand-father of Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor, Lala Hem Raj Kapoor, father of Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor and Lala Gaur Kishore Kapoor, son of Lala Durga Das Kapoor and father of plaintiff, could redeem the mortgage on or before 30.9.1954 by payment of mortgage debt and interest thereon. However, the disputed property was never redeemed by these persons. The defendants have become absolute owners thereof. Sh. However, the disputed property was never redeemed by these persons. The defendants have become absolute owners thereof. Sh. Hem Raj and Gaur Kishore Kapoor intimated Municipal Committee, Dalhousie vide letter dated 6.8.1959 for transferring the ownership of disputed property in favour of Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor with effect from 1.10.1954. However, the Municipal Committee, Dalhousie refused to transfer the ownership because of certain arrears of taxes. Thereafter, on 27.1.1960, Gaur Kishore Kapoor and Hem Raj Kapoor again wrote a letter to the Municipal Committee, Dalhousie that they have nothing to do with the disputed property. Thereafter, Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor had been paying the taxes to the Municipal Committee, Dalhousie regularly. However, revenue record showed Hem Raj Kapoor and Gaur Kishore Kapoor as owners to the extent of half share and Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor to the extent of another half share. Thereafter, the plaintiff in connivance with the revenue department got his name incorporated as owner of half share vide mutation dated 5.3.1993. It was illegal. In the counterclaim, defendants prayed for the decree of declaration that the revenue record in favour of the plaintiff was null and void and further restraining him from interfering in their peaceful possession over the disputed property. 4. Issues were framed by the trial court on 24.3.1994. The suit was decreed on 19.4.1999. Defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1999 against the judgment and decree dated 19.4.1999. It was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chamba on 29.12.2000. Defendants filed Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2001. It was allowed on 22.5.2008. The findings of the trial court were set aside and the trial court was directed to hear the parties and dispose of the case. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 7.7.2008. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 27.6.2011. Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2011 before the District Judge, Chamba bearing Civil Appeal No. 18/2011. Learned District Judge dismissed the same on 22.12.2012. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on 12.4.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 27.6.2011. Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2011 before the District Judge, Chamba bearing Civil Appeal No. 18/2011. Learned District Judge dismissed the same on 22.12.2012. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on 12.4.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties and drawing wrong inferences from the facts proved on record, particularly, Ex.DW-4/A to Ex.DW-4/C, Ex.DW-4/G and P1 Missal Hakiyat, P2 Assessment, register of recovery of Municipal taxes Ex.D-1, the judgment of the Bombay High Court? 2. Whether in view of the fact that the judgment of the Bombay High Court Ex.D-1 had not been executed and inference could be drawn that the same had been acted upon or that stood satisfied when admittedly no execution was filed and no satisfaction recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code? 3. Whether the court below has relied upon inadmissible oral and documentary evidence and ignored the judgment of this Hon’ble Court while remanding the case, particularly, when Ramni Chopra and Nita Mehra had supported the case of the appellant, the courts below were not competent to go into the additional pleas which had been decided against the defendant-respondent in the earlier stage of the litigation? 5. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the courts below have misread Ex.DW-4/A to Ex.DW-4/C, Ex.DW-4/G and P-1 Missal Hakiyat, P-2 Assessment, register of recovery of municipal taxes Ex.D-1 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court. He also argued that the judgment of the Bombay High Court Ex.D-1 was not executed. He lastly contended that both the courts below have relied upon inadmissible oral and documentary evidence after the matter was remanded by the Court in RSA No. 21 of 2001. 6. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 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. 6. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 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. PW-1 Nawal Kapoor has testified that the disputed property was jointly owned and possessed by Hem Raj Kapoor and Gaur Kishore Kapoor and after the death of his father Gaur Kishore Kapoor, the property was jointly possessed by his uncle Hem Raj Kapoor and his mother, who died in the year 1992 and thereafter, he and defendants remained in joint possession of the disputed property till September, 1997. Defendant Manohar Lal Kapoor was present at the time of settlement in the year 1987. Statements of the parties were recorded during settlement. However, in his cross-examination, he has expressed his inability that his father and grand-father wrote a letter to Municipal Committee, Dalhousie intimating Municipal Committee, Dalhousie that they were no more owners of the disputed property and Arun Kapoor and Manohar Kapoor were the owners. He has denied the suggestion that Manohar Lal Kapoor and Arun Kumar Kapoor used to pay taxes of the disputed property to M.C. Dalhousie. He has paid the taxes of the disputed property to M.C. Dalhousie from the year 1993 to 1997. He has admitted that one Jaswant Thukral was tenant in the disputed property and defendant No.1 used to receive the rent from him. He has further stated that Jaswant Thukral was tenant of all the parties. 10. PW-2 Dharam Chand has testified that he has supplied sand and grit to the plaintiff against bills Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. 11. PW-3 Sunil Kumar, JTO, Telephone Exchange, Dalhousie has testified that on 31.3.1994, plaintiff obtained a telephone connection in the disputed property. 12. PW-4 Sukh Dev has testified that on 4.7.1996, plaintiff obtained gas connection in the disputed property. 13. DW-1 Nirmala Kapoor has testified that disputed property was owned by defendant No.1 and Arun Kumar Kapoor after consent decree Ex.D-1. They used to pay taxes. Defendant No.1 inducted tenant in the disputed property and in order to evict him, he filed eviction petition, which was allowed vide order Ex.D-2. 13. DW-1 Nirmala Kapoor has testified that disputed property was owned by defendant No.1 and Arun Kumar Kapoor after consent decree Ex.D-1. They used to pay taxes. Defendant No.1 inducted tenant in the disputed property and in order to evict him, he filed eviction petition, which was allowed vide order Ex.D-2. She has denied the suggestion that after the death of Gaur Kishore Kapoor, his wife and plaintiff came in possession of the disputed property. She has expressed her inability that defendant No.1 was present at the time of settlement and his statement was also recorded during the settlement wherein he admitted the plaintiff to be owner of half portion of the suit property. 14. DW-2 Baldev Raj, Senior Assistant, HPSEB has produced the record of electricity meter installed in the disputed property in the name of defendant No.1. 15. DW-4 Kuldeep Raj Mahajan has produced the relevant record of M.C. Dalhousie pertaining to the disputed property. He has proved letters Ex.DW-4/A and Ex.DW-4/B. He has also proved the copies of letters Ex.DW-4/C to Ex.DW-4/G written by M.C. Dalhousie to Manohar Lal Kapoor and Arun Kumar Kapoor. He has also proved the bills issued by M.C. Dalhousie Ex.DW-4/H to Ex.DW-4/L. He has further proved receipts of the M.C. Tax of the disputed property paid by Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor Ex.DW-4/N to Ex.DW-4/Q. He has also admitted the payment of tax of the disputed property by the plaintiff vide receipts Ex.P-5 and P-6 in the year 1995-1996. 16. Two Civil Suits bearing Nos. 406/1952 and 200/1953 were decided by a consent decree. Civil Suit No. 200/1953 pertained to “Chandan Estate” at Dalhousie. The “Chandan Estate”, Dalhousie, on the basis of consent decree, was transferred in favour of Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor, subject to the proviso for redemption by defendants No.1, 2 and 3, who were Lala Durga Dass Kapoor, Lala Hem Raj Kapoor and Lala Gaur Kishore. However, fact of the matter is that three defendants, i.e. Lala Durga Dass Kapoor, Lala Hem Raj Kapoor and Lala Gaur Kishore did not redeem the mortgage before 30.9.1954 by payment of the mortgaged debt mentioned in the plaint. It was also mentioned in the decree that if the mortgage was not redeemed by 30.9.1954, defendants jointly and severally shall stand debarred and foreclosed to redeem the property, i.e. “Chandan Estate”. 17. Mr. It was also mentioned in the decree that if the mortgage was not redeemed by 30.9.1954, defendants jointly and severally shall stand debarred and foreclosed to redeem the property, i.e. “Chandan Estate”. 17. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has argued that final decree was required to be passed after the consent decree Ex.D-1. However, fact of the matter is that as per Ex.D-1, defendants, i.e. Lala Durga Dass Kapoor, Lala Hem Raj Kapoor and Lala Gaur Kishore lost their rights to redeem the disputed property. Thus, there was no requirement for applying for final decree. The purpose of passing the preliminary decree moreover is to give time to deposit the mortgage money. However, fact of the matter is that as per consent decree Ex.D-1, the defendants were required to redeem the property on or before 30.9.1954; but they have not redeemed the mortgaged property. They ceased to have any right, title or interest on the disputed property after 1.10.1954. 18. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, has further argued that the consent decree Ex.D-1 dated 23.4.1954 was to be executed. He has referred to Missal Hakiat Ex.P-1, bills of construction material purchased by the plaintiff to raise the construction on disputed property Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3, telephone connection and gas connection. The plaintiff has not examined any witness to prove that he was in settled possession of the disputed property. The plaintiff has purchased the construction material in the year 1996. He has got the telephone installed on 31.3.1994 and obtained the gas connection on 4.7.1996. If he was in physical possession of the house from the very beginning, he should have obtained the gas and telephone connections before 1996. There is no evidence to prove that prior to filing of the suit, plaintiff remained in actual possession of the disputed property. It has come in the statement of DW-1 Nirmala Kapoor that the disputed property was in possession of one Jaswant Thukral. The eviction petition was filed by one of the defendants. It has also come on record that defendant No.1 Manohar Lal (deceased) and Arun Kumar used to pay the M.C. taxes as per Ex.DW-4/N to Ex.DW-4/Q. The plaintiff has never paid M.C. taxes prior to filing of suit. He has paid the M.C. taxes after the filing of the suit. The eviction petition was filed by one of the defendants. It has also come on record that defendant No.1 Manohar Lal (deceased) and Arun Kumar used to pay the M.C. taxes as per Ex.DW-4/N to Ex.DW-4/Q. The plaintiff has never paid M.C. taxes prior to filing of suit. He has paid the M.C. taxes after the filing of the suit. Since the disputed property was under the control of defendants, there was no need to file execution petition of consent decree dated 23.4.1954. The decree Ex.D-1 was acted upon by the defendants. The plaintiff has not produced statement allegedly made by Manohar Lal during settlement. Ex.DW-4/A and DW-4/B were written by Hem Raj Kapoor and Gaur Kishore to the M.C. Dalhousie in reply to the letter issued by M.C. Dalhousie to them to deposit the tax of disputed property. Vide Ex.DW-4/A, both Hem Raj Kapoor and Gaur Kishore Kapoor have intimated the M.C. Dalhousie that the ownership of “Chandan Estate” vested with Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor w.e.f. 1.10.1954. Similarly, Ex.DW-4/B was written by Hem Raj Kapoor wherein he has again requested M.C. Dalhousie not to claim tax from him as the property stands transferred to Arun Kumar Kapoor and Manohar Lal Kapoor. These documents are 30 years old. Ex.DW-4/A and DW-4/B conclusively prove that decree Ex.D-1 was acted upon by the parties. It would be pertinent to take note at the stage that after the receipt of Ex.DW-1/A and Ex.DW-1/B by M.C. Dalhousie, M.C. Dalhousie wrote letters Ex.DW-4/C to Ex.DW-4/F to Manohar Lal Kapoor and Arun Kumar Kapoor requesting them to pay the arrears of tax, which were already paid by them. The copies of Ex.DW-4/C to Ex.DW-4/F were also forwarded to Hem Raj Kapoor and Gaur Kishore Kapoor. The consent decree Ex.D-1 was never challenged. Thus, it has attained finality. The defendants were not required to file execution petition for the simple reason that the consent decree was not required to be executed. 19. The revenue entries were changed at the back of defendants. Learned courts below have correctly declared the revenue entries whereby the plaintiff was shown owner to the extent of half share of the property, as null and void. 19. The revenue entries were changed at the back of defendants. Learned courts below have correctly declared the revenue entries whereby the plaintiff was shown owner to the extent of half share of the property, as null and void. The Settlement Officer has passed the order on 23.2.1993 and the fact of the matter is that Arun Kumar has expired on 23.4.1992, i.e. prior to passing of order dated 23.2.1993 by the Settlement Officer. 20. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence, including exhibits, led by the parties before and after the remand of the case. 21. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 22. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.