JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellants/defendants (hereinafter called as “the defendants”) against the respondents/plaintiffs hereinafter called as “the plaintiffs”) assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 76-04, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul Spiti, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 196 of 1999/180 of 2000, dated 25.08.2004, was set-aside. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that as per the plaintiffs, the suit land, to the extent of half share measuring 0-7-0 bigha, was in the possession of Hira Lal, father of defendants No. 1 and 2 and husband of defendant No. 3, with possession “Khanakashat”. Hira Lal, sold half of his share, measuring 0-7-0 bigha, to one Thakur Ram Dass, father of Champa Devi (plaintiff) and Durga Thakur and Padma Devi, proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 respectively, for consideration of Rs. 350/-, vide sale deed, dated 07.12.1962. As a result of which, Thakur Ram Dass became owner to the extent of half share and came in possession of the same. It is further averred that Thakur Ram Dass died in the year 1983 and on account of his death, his entire share was inherited by plaintiffs, proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 and his widow Lotmi Devi. Lotmi Devi Died in the year 1985, and her estate was inherited by original plaintiff Champa Devi and proforma defendants No. 4 and 5. After family settlement, aforementioned half share came in the share of Champa Devi, daughter of Thakur Ram Dass, this settlement was entered into amongst the legal representatives of Lotmi Devi, after her death. The remaining half share of the suit land was obtained by the plaintiff in an oral exchange from Amar Singh, etc. On the basis of said oral exchange, mutation No. 1638 of phati dwara was entered and attested. In view of this, the plaintiff came in possession of the entire suit land and became exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that Hira Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3 had already sold his share in the suit land in favour of Thakur Ram Dass and he was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land. It was further averred that Hira Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3 had already sold his share in the suit land in favour of Thakur Ram Dass and he was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land. Defendants No. 1 to 3 in connivance with the revenue Officials and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, got entered their names and name of Gumtu Devi, widow of Het Ram, in the jamabandi. After the death of Gumtu Devi, widow of Het Ram, respondents No. 1 to 3, become her legal representatives. On the basis of wrong revenue entries, defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the land wrongly and by show of force. Despite repeated requests, the defendants did not refrain from their unlawful acts. 3. Conversely, the defendants, by way of filing written statement, raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, suppression of material facts, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties and valuation. On merits, the defendants averred that sale deed, dated 07.11.1962, was nothing but only a paper transaction, as no possession was delivered by Hira Lal to the purchaser and no money was paid to the seller by the purchaser, the alleged sale deed was not given effect in the revenue papers and till the filing of the suit, entries on the basis of sale deed could not be made. It was further averred that in the suit land Hira Lal and Lahlu were co-sharers alongwith one Dile Ram. Dile Ram was owner to the extent of half share in the suit land, who transferred his full share measuring 0-7-0 bigha, by way of exchange, in favour of Hira Lal on 12.03.1962. As a result of which, enteries were effected in the name of Hira Lal in revenue papers and he became owner of 0-10-0 bigha. On account of family settlement between Hira Lal and Lahulu, both brother and sister were in possession of total suit land. It was further averred that Hira Lal transferred his half share in favour of Amar Singh vide mutation No. 1341, for the reasons that the plaintiff is not a possession of entire suit land. On account of family settlement between Hira Lal and Lahulu, both brother and sister were in possession of total suit land. It was further averred that Hira Lal transferred his half share in favour of Amar Singh vide mutation No. 1341, for the reasons that the plaintiff is not a possession of entire suit land. It was further averred that possession of seven biswas of land was never given by their father to the plaintiffs and the exchange between Thakur Ram Dass and Dile Ram is forged and fictitious, as Dile Ram has already parted with his share in favour of Hira Lal by way of exchange. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs is owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether sale deed dated 07.12.1962 executed by late Shri Hira Lal is a paper transaction, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs is stopped from filing the suit by her act and conduct? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the suit is properly valued is for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Relief”. After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs, issue No. 3 against the defendants, issues No. 4 to 6, as not pressed and issue No. 7 holding that suit was properly valued, suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 5. In the first appeal, the learned lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal of plaintiffs and decreed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, whereby defendants were restrained from making any type of interference with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, comprised in khata, khatauni No. 32/64, khasra Nos 420 and 421, measuring 0-14-0 bighas, situated in phati Dwara, Kothi-Baragarh, Tehsil & District Kullu. 6. The present regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in validating the sale deed Exhibit P-1 to be a document under Section-90 of Evidence Act, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment & decree? 2. 6. The present regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in validating the sale deed Exhibit P-1 to be a document under Section-90 of Evidence Act, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment & decree? 2. Whether without seeking declaration regarding the entry in the record of rights and proving possession of the suit land, the permanent prohibitory injunction can be issued, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 7. Shri S.S. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is perverse and deserves to be set aside and the suit is required to be dismissed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court below, are as per law and after appreciating the oral evidence and documents to their right perspective and need no interference. 8. In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that the learned lower Appellate Court has validated sale deed, Ext. P-1, without their being any evidence on record and so the Court below has misinterpreted document and the findings are perverse. 9. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records in detail. 10. Champa Devi (plaintiff) is claiming half share in the suit land on the basis of sale deed, Ext. P-1, executed by Hira Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, and proforma defendants and other half share on the basis of exchange between her, Amar Singh and Pritam Singh sons of Dile Ram, vide mutation No. 1638. Thus, she claims her exclusive possession over the suit land. 11. Even if the sale deed, Ext. P-1, was not given effect in the revenue record, the same does not extinguish right of the purchaser. There is no dispute that on the basis of said sale deed Ext. P-1, mutation could not be attested in favour of Thakur Ram Dass or proforma defendants and said fact has not been explained by the plaintiffs, but non explaining of the said fact does not affect the case of the plaintiffs, because mutation does not create or extinguish any right, title or interest in the immovable property. P-1, mutation could not be attested in favour of Thakur Ram Dass or proforma defendants and said fact has not been explained by the plaintiffs, but non explaining of the said fact does not affect the case of the plaintiffs, because mutation does not create or extinguish any right, title or interest in the immovable property. Mutation is required to be done simply to keep the revenue record upto date and for the purpose of receipt of land revenue. It has been correctly held by the learned lower Appellate Court that sale deed Ext. P-1, stands duly proved. On the basis of sale deed, Ext. P-1, this fact is established that Hira Lal, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3 sold half share, measuring 7 biswas, out of the suit land to plaintiff, Champa Devi and Thakur Ram Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, and they were duly put in possession of the suit land. After his death, Champa Devi and now the plaintiffs remained in possession of the said land which was purchased by Thakur Ram Dass. 12. It is revealed from the remarks column of jamabandi, Ext. D-1, that Dile Ram exchanged half share of the suit land with Sangat Ram, vide mutation No. 441, on 12.03.1962, and thus Sangat Ram came in the possession of the suit land to the extent of remaining half share. He further exchanged half share of the land measuring 0-7-0 bigha, with Hira Lal, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3, so Hira Lal became the owner-in possession of the entire suit land to the extent of 0-7-0 bigha. It is proved from the copy of mutation, Ext. PB No.1341, dated 17.08.1990, that Hira Lal sold the said half share of the suit land in favour of Amar Nath and Pritam Singh, vide mutation No. 1638, Ext. P-2, dated 23.09.1996, exchanged 6/11 share, out of the suit land which was partitioned by them. Hira Lal had got the same from Dile Ram in exchange with original plaintiff, Champa Devi with her land, comprised in khasra No. 465, as a result of which Champa Devi became owner of the entire 6/11 share of the suit land. In view of this, predecessor-in-interest of Champa Devi named Thakur Ram Dass purchased half share of the suit land from Hira Lal, vide registered sale deed Ext. In view of this, predecessor-in-interest of Champa Devi named Thakur Ram Dass purchased half share of the suit land from Hira Lal, vide registered sale deed Ext. P-1, and came in possession of the same and remaining suit land was obtained by Champa Devi by way of exchange with Amar Singh and Pritam Singh. Thus, she became owner of whole of the suit land and came in possession of the suit land as co-sharer. 13. Even no person has been examined by the defendants to prove that they are in actual possession of the suit land. In view of what has discussed hereinabove, substantial question of law No. 2 is answered holding that the sale deed is appreciated by the learned Lower Appellate Court correctly. The documents is in existence and have been proved on record, the findings recorded by learned lower Appellate Court on the basis of sale deed, Ext. P-1 are after appreciating the document is correct and substantial question of law No. 2 is answered holding that the revenue entries have been rebutted by the plaintiffs by leading cogent evidence. 14. Resultantly, the findings arrived at by the learned Lower Appellate Court are just reasoned and after appreciating the evidence on record to perspective and calls for no interference. 15. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal is devoid of merits, hence deserves dismissal. 16. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.