JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Chamba, H.P., dated 22.4.2015, passed in Civil Appeal No. 3/2015. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), has instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he along with proforma defendant, namely, Sardar Singh, is co-owner in possession over the land as detailed in the plaint to the extent of half share and mutation No. 388 dated 26.03.1978 sanctioned and attested in favour of Chando Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants was illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and proforma defendant. The plaintiff has also filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature, alienating or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land on the basis of wrong and illegal revenue entries. According to the averments made in the plaint, late Hira Singh son of Nihala was recorded as owner-in-possession over the suit land. After the death of Hira Singh, his entire estate was inherited by late Sh. Prithi Singh, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff, proforma defendant and Chando Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants. One Sh. Chand son of Suchetu cultivated the suit land for some time as tenant but abandoned the land in the year 1966 and thereafter, late Sh. Prithi Chand and Chando Ram, both sons of late Sh. Hira Singh came in the possession of the suit land and started cultivating the same. Both late Sh. Prithi Chand and Chando Ram were in peaceful possession over the suit land in equal shares and were cultivating the suit land without any interruption, however, the entries continued to be in favour of Chand son of Suchetu as tenant. On the basis of revenue entries, mutation No. 314 dated 22.2.1976 was entered and attested in favour of Chand son of Suchetu under the Himachal Pradesh Land Reforms Act. Thereafter, Chando Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants filed an appeal before the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dalhousie against the mutation No. 314 dated 22.2.1976 attested in favour of Chand son of Suchetu wherein late Sh. Prithi Singh, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff was also arrayed as respondent No. 2. However, he was not summoned or called. Thereafter, Chando Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants filed an appeal before the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dalhousie against the mutation No. 314 dated 22.2.1976 attested in favour of Chand son of Suchetu wherein late Sh. Prithi Singh, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff was also arrayed as respondent No. 2. However, he was not summoned or called. During the pendency of the appeal, Chand son of Suchetu who was brother-in-law of late Sh. Chando Ram son of Hira Singh entered into an agreement in connivance with each other on 21.6.1977 and presented the same before the SDO(C) Dalhousie, on the basis of which, the appeal of Chando Ram son of Hira Singh was allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Bhattiyat on 21.6.1977. The learned Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Bhattiyat attested the mutation No. 388 dated 26.03.1978 in favour of Chando Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants without the knowledge and behind the back of late Sh. Prithi Singh, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff. Accordingly, Chando son of Hira Singh alone was recorded as owner of the suit land. Sh. Prithi Singh died on 12.1.2003. He remained in continuous possession over the suit land till his death. After his death, plaintiff and proforma defendant are in continuous possession over the suit land being sons of late Sh. Prithi Singh. The cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in the month of March, 2010 when defendants started threatening the plaintiff to alienate the suit land and to dispossess him. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. The defendants admitted that earlier late Sh. Hira Singh son of Sh. Nihala was owner-in-possession over the suit land. The relationship of the parties shown in the pedigree table in the plaint was also admitted, however, it was denied that after the death of late Sh. Hira Singh, his entire estate was inherited by late Sh. Prithi Singh and late Sh. Chando Ram. According to them, suit land was given to Chando Ram, predecessor-ininterest of defendants in a family settlement. Sh. Chando Ram and after his death the contesting defendants are in peaceful cultivatory possession over the suit land. It is also admitted by the defendants in the written statement that Chand son of Suchetu cultivated the suit land and abandoned the same in the year 1966. According to the defendants, late Sh. Sh. Chando Ram and after his death the contesting defendants are in peaceful cultivatory possession over the suit land. It is also admitted by the defendants in the written statement that Chand son of Suchetu cultivated the suit land and abandoned the same in the year 1966. According to the defendants, late Sh. Prithi Singh or plaintiff and proforma defendant never cultivated the suit land. Though, it is admitted by defendants that an appeal was filed before SDO (C), Dalhousie by Chando Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants, however, it is denied that late Sh. Prithi Singh was never summoned or called in those proceedings. In fact, according to the defendants, late Sh. Prithi Singh gave his consent for correction of revenue entries in favour of late Chando Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants as the same was settled in family settlement. Late Sh. Prithi Singh never challenged the order of SDO (C), Dalhousie nor mutation No. 388 dated 26.03.1978. 4. Replication was filed and the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dalhousie, framed the issues on 27.8.2012. The suit was decreed to the effect that plaintiff along with proforma defendant was co-owner in possession over the suit land to the extent of half share along with defendants and mutation No. 388 dated 26.03.1978 sanctioned and attested in favour of Sh. Chando Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants was illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of plaintiff along with relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature, alienating or dispossessing the plaintiff and proforma defendant from the suit land on the basis of wrong and illegal revenue entries in their favour. The defendants, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Chamba. He dismissed the same on 22.4.2015. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on 15.12.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation as well as mis-appreciation of Ext. PA missal haquiat bandobast, Ext. PB Jamabandi for the year 1956-57 and Ext. PC Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and order dated 21st June, 1977 Ext. D-1 and Ext. D-8, copy of Jamabandi for year 1975-76, and Ext. PA to Ext. PL? 2. PA missal haquiat bandobast, Ext. PB Jamabandi for the year 1956-57 and Ext. PC Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and order dated 21st June, 1977 Ext. D-1 and Ext. D-8, copy of Jamabandi for year 1975-76, and Ext. PA to Ext. PL? 2. Whether the learned Courts below are right in not dismissing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff being barred by time in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court? 3. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be quashed and set aside being result of non-consideration of principle of estoppels inasmuch as the respondent-plaintiff having filed the suit against the mutation dated 26th March, 1978 after a lapse of 33 years especially when his predecessor-in-interest was alive till 2003 and did not assail the said mutation?” 6. Mr. Ramakant Sharma Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law, has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have misread the documentary evidence and the suit was barred by limitation. He also argued that though the mutation was attested on 26.3.1978, however, the suit was filed after 33 years. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupender Pathania, 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 to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 9. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. He has supported the averments made in the plaint. According to him, Sh. Chand son of Suchetu was recorded as tenant over the suit land. He has abandoned his tenancy in the year 1966, however, revenue entries continued in his name and later on he was recorded as owner of the suit land by virtue of provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The appeal was filed by Chando Ram son of Hira Singh before learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dalhousie. It was allowed on the basis of compromise entered in between Chand son of Suchetu and Sh. The appeal was filed by Chando Ram son of Hira Singh before learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dalhousie. It was allowed on the basis of compromise entered in between Chand son of Suchetu and Sh. Chando Ram son of Hira Singh without the knowledge and behind the back of late Sh. Prithi Singh, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff and proforma defendant. The cause of action arose in the month of March, 2010 when defendants started threatening the plaintiff to alienate the suit land and dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendant from the suit land. 10. DW-1 Joginder Singh has also led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. DW-1/A. According to him, the suit land came to the share of his father Sh. Chando Ram in family settlement and after his death, defendants were in possession over the suit land. It was testified by Joginder Singh that an appeal was decided by SDO (C), Dalhousie in favour of Chando Ram son of Sh. Hira Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendants with the conent of the parties. 11. DW-2 Rajneesh Singh has also led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. DW-2/A. According to him, the defendants were in cultivatory possession of the suit land. 12. It is admitted fact that late Hira Singh son of Nihala Singh was owner-in-possession of the suit property. Plaintiff’s father Sh. Prithi Singh and defendants’ father Sh. Chando Ram are sons of late Sh. Hira Singh. As per copy of missal Hakiyat Ext. PA, Sh. Hira Singh son of Nihala was recorded as absolute owner-in-possession over the suit land. As per the remarks column of copy of jamabandi for the year 1970-71, Chand son of Suchetu was recorded as owner-in-possession over the suit land. As per remarks column of copy of jamabandi for the year 1975-76 Ext. PD, the suit land was again recorded under the ownership and possession of Chando Ram son of Sh. Hira Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendants. 13. The case of the defendants is that the suit land was partitioned by way of family settlement. However, no tangible evidence has been placed on record to prove the settlement. There is no entry of the settlement in the revenue record. The suit land was earlier entered in the name of Chand son of Suchetu vide mutation No. 314 dated 22.2.1976. This mutation was challenged by Chando Ram by filing an appeal before learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dalhousie. Sh. There is no entry of the settlement in the revenue record. The suit land was earlier entered in the name of Chand son of Suchetu vide mutation No. 314 dated 22.2.1976. This mutation was challenged by Chando Ram by filing an appeal before learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dalhousie. Sh. Prithi Singh was arrayed as respondent No. 2, however, Sh. Prithi Singh was not summoned while remanding the matter by learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dalhousie. Chand and Chando Ram had entered into an agreement in connivance with each other on 21.6.1977 vide Ext. PJ. According to Ext. PJ also, the plaintiff’s father was not present. 14. The matter was remanded by learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dalhousie on 21.6.1977. The learned Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Bhattiyat attested mutation No. 388 dated 26.03.1978 in favour of Chando Ram. The plaintiff’s father Prithi Singh ought to have been heard at the time of passing of the order on 21.6.1977 and at the time of attestation of mutation on 26.3.1978. The compromise arrived at between Chand and Chando Ram was not binding upon Prithi Singh. Thus, the entries made on the basis of mutation No. 388 dated 26.03.1978 were illegal. The name of Chando Ram could not be entered as sole owner-in-possession of the suit land. There is neither any family settlement deed nor any document in the shape of daily diary report lodged with the patwari, to prove that family settlement was given effect to in the revenue records. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 15. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shiam Singh and others vs. Chaman Lal and others, reported in 2011 (Suppl.) Him. L.R. 2065, has held that limitation begins to run not from the date of the entry affecting the right of the person concerned, but from the date when he feels aggrieved by the entry and it is the satisfaction of such person as to when does he feel aggrieved. L.R. 2065, has held that limitation begins to run not from the date of the entry affecting the right of the person concerned, but from the date when he feels aggrieved by the entry and it is the satisfaction of such person as to when does he feel aggrieved. It has been held as under: “It is well settled that for a suit for declaration, referred to in Section 46, limitation begins to run not from the date of the entry affecting the right of the person concerned, but from the date when he feels aggrieved by the entry and it is the satisfaction of such person as to when does he feel aggrieved. Defendant cannot be heard to say that he (the plaintiff) felt aggrieved by the entry at some earlier point of time or when the entry was actually made.” 16. In the instant case, the suit was thus within limitation. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.