JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 282 of 1993/278 of 1994 dated 11.05.2000, vide which learned Senior Sub Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, as well as the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer/Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2000/RBT 214/2004 dated 19.05.2006, whereby learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 2. This appeal was admitted on 28.06.2007 by this Court on the following substantial question of law:- ?Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not vitiated on the ground that it has failed to take into consideration Section 45 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act where legal presumption of truth is attached to the latest entries in the records of rights? 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent/defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, for restraining the defendant from raising any sort of construction over the land comprised in Khata No. 123 min, Khatauni No. 144 min, Khasra No. 220 measuring 0-18 Marlas, situated in village Baroha, Tappa Matti Morian, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. According to the plaintiff, he was owner in possession alongiwth other co-sharers of the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90 and the defendant who was totally a stranger, had no right and title over the suit land. Despite this, defendant on 24.08.1993 started collecting material and digging foundation in the suit land forcibly and when plaintiff requested the defendant not to do so, defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. It was on these basis that the suit was filed by the plaintiff. 4. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant who inter alia mentioned in the written statement that the plaintiff in fact was not in possession of the suit land as the same was in possession of the defendant and the suit was also bad for non joinder of necessary parties. 4. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant who inter alia mentioned in the written statement that the plaintiff in fact was not in possession of the suit land as the same was in possession of the defendant and the suit was also bad for non joinder of necessary parties. According to the defendant, the suit land was Shamlat in which defendant was also one of the co-sharers. However, the father of the plaintiff had got wrong entry made in his favour without notice to the defendant. It was further the case put up by the defendant that defendant being one of the Tikadarans or proprietor of the Tika had got interest over every inch of Shamlat and whole proprietory body had got right and partition proceedings were pending before the Tehsildar. As per the defendant, his status was that of one of the co-sharers and he was in possession of suit land and his possession had never been objected during the life time of the father of the plaintiff and the land in fact was shown in the joint ownership and possession of all co-sharers except the Khatris. It was further the case of the defendant that old Khasra No. prior to consolidation was 216/1 and this number had come into existence during consolidation in the year 1962-63 and thereafter continued to be in joint ownership of the defendant who was one of the co-sharers in the Shamlat and he was in possession of the same. According to the defendant, he carried out construction over the suit land and also over some portion of Khasra No. 221 by spending huge amount which was never objected to by anyone and construction was complete in all respect when the suit was filed. It was further the case of the defendant that he had also filed suit with regard to the suit land against the opposite party and other proprietors of the Tika and the defendant was declared to be owner of the property and the same thus did not vest in the Panchayat and was accordingly in his possession alongwith other co-sharers. It was further the case of the defendant that he had also filed suit with regard to the suit land against the opposite party and other proprietors of the Tika and the defendant was declared to be owner of the property and the same thus did not vest in the Panchayat and was accordingly in his possession alongwith other co-sharers. On these basis, it was claimed by the defendant that his possession over the suit land stood established since long and the revenue entries to the contrary were wrongly made by the revenue staff in collusion with the plaintiff's father and there was no order as to how said entries had come into existence. On these basis, the defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? … OPP 2. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of demolition? … OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? … OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for necessary parties? …. OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his act and conduct? … OPD 6. Whether the suit is within limitation? … OP. Parties 7. Relief. 6. On the basis of evidence led by both the parties, learned trial Court returned the following findings to the issues so framed:- Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: No. Issue No. 6: Yes. Relief : Suit dismissed with no order as to costs per operative part of the judgment. 7. Accordingly, learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 220 was earlier Khasra No. 216/1 prior to consolidation as was evident from Ext. D-4 copy of jamabandi for the year 1913-14, copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63 Ext. D-5 as well as Missal Hakiat for the year 1962-63 Ext. D-6. D-4 copy of jamabandi for the year 1913-14, copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63 Ext. D-5 as well as Missal Hakiat for the year 1962-63 Ext. D-6. Learned trial Court took note of the fact that all Tikadarans were shown to be co-sharers in the Shamlat Tika and it was not proved on record by the plaintiff as to how the change was effected in favour of plaintiff in the subsequent copy of jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ext. PA in which he was shown in possession over the suit land. Learned trial Court relying upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when earlier revenue entries stood changed and the change was unauthorized and there was no material to justify change of entry then presumption of correctness attached with the revenue entries stood rebutted. Learned trial Court further held that it was evident from the records that the defendant was in possession of the suit land and he had carried out construction over the same which fact was not disputed by the plaintiff. On these basis, it was held by learned trial Court that the plaintiff in fact was out of possession of the suit land and accordingly was not entitled to relief of permanent injunction. It was further held by learned trial Court that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and as it stood established from the records that the construction had been carried over the suit land by the defendant before filing of the suit and no one had objected to it and partition proceedings were pending before the Tehsildar, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to relief of possession by way of demolition. 8. In appeal, the findings so returned by learned trial Court were upheld. It was held by learned Appellate Court that the plaintiff had based his claim over the suit land on the basis of entries made in jamabandi for the year 1989-90 but it was apparent from the documents on record that right from the very beginning suit land had been recorded in joint possession of the villagers being Shamlat and only entries in favour of the plaintiff appeared in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ext. PA. Learned Appellate Court further held that how this change was effected in favour of the plaintiff, was not explained by the plaintiff. PA. Learned Appellate Court further held that how this change was effected in favour of the plaintiff, was not explained by the plaintiff. No evidence was led on behalf of the plaintiff as to how these entries were changed in his favour or in favour of his father. Learned Appellate Court further held that Rapat Rojnamcha Ext. DW3/A had been held to be unauthorizedly prepared and as such change made vide said Rojnamcha was without the order of the competent revenue authority. It was further held that in these circumstances later revenue entries could not be considered to be correct and no presumption of truth could be attached to the said unauthorized later entries. Accordingly, learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff by holding that the change in the revenue entries had been made without any order of the competent authority and without any material to justify the same. 9. Mr. Anuj Nag, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the findings which have been returned by both learned Courts below to the effect that presumption of truth was not attached to the latest revenue entries was a finding which was totally perverse as the said findings returned by both learned Courts below were totally contrary to the provisions of Section 45 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. It was argued by Mr. Nag that because presumption of truth was attached to the revenue entries as per the provisions of Section 45 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, therefore, findings to the contrary returned by both learned Courts below were a result of complete misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. On these basis, it was urged by Mr. Nag that the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below were perverse and not sustainable in law. No other point was urged. 10. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, argued that there was no merit in the present appeal and in fact the findings returned by both Courts below to the effect that the entries in favour of the plaintiff which appeared in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ext. PA remained unexplained and were result of Rapat Rojnamcha Ext. PA remained unexplained and were result of Rapat Rojnamcha Ext. DW3/A which had been held to be unauthorizedly prepared without the order of the competent revenue authority, were correct findings as in the absence of any explanation of the change of revenue entries it cannot be said that in each and every case latest entries in revenue record have to be deemed to be correct. It was further argued by Mr. Verma that the presumption of truth attached to the revenue entries was rebuttable and in the present case, the defendant had successfully rebutted the revenue entries made in favour of the plaintiff in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ext. PA. Mr. Verma further argued that as there was concurrent finding returned against the plaintiff to this effect by both learned Courts below, the same did not even call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 100 C.P.C. On these basis, it was argued by Mr. Verma that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgments and decrees passed by both learned Courts below. 12. It is an undisputed fact that in the previous revenue entries, the suit land was not recorded in possession of the father of the plaintiff as co-sharer. It has come on record that right from the year 1913-14, joint possession of the villagers had been recorded over the suit land and it has come in the testimony of Bali Ram who entered the witness box as DW-5 that the suit land was Shamlat land of all the villagers and the same had not been partitioned and defendant had constructed a Danga and service station over the suit land in the year 1992-93 and the same was not in possession of the plaintiff. The factum of defendant being in possession of the suit land which was Shamlat also stood corroborated by the statement of DW-6 Kishan Chand. Ext. DW3/A i.e. Rojnamcha was prepared by Kanshi Ram, who entered the witness box as DW-3 and was a retired Kanungo. It has come on record that he was posted as Patwari in the year 1968 in the area concerned. Ext. DW3/A i.e. Rojnamcha was prepared by Kanshi Ram, who entered the witness box as DW-3 and was a retired Kanungo. It has come on record that he was posted as Patwari in the year 1968 in the area concerned. This witness stated that there was no order of Naib Tehsildar or Tehsildar to prepare this report nor any Lamberdar of the village was present when the same was prepared. On these basis, it has been held by learned Courts below that it was apparent from the statement of DW-3 that Rojnamcha Ext. DW3/A had been prepared without any authority or order of a competent revenue authority. Entries in jamabandi for the year 1989-90 are based on Rapat Rojnamcha Ext. DW3/A which learned Courts below held to be unauthorizedly prepared. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the entries recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ext. PA owe their origin to unauthorizeldy prepared Rojnamcha, there is no sanctity attached with the said entries especially keeping in view the fact that no evidence has been placed on record by the plaintiff as to how this change was effected in favour of the plaintiff and how this revenue entries were changed in his favour or in favour of his father. 13. Section 45 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act provides as under:- ?45. Presumption in favour of entries in records-of-rights and [periodical] records - An entry made in a record-of-rights in accordance with the law for the time being in force, or [periodical] record in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore; Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this section any entry made, in the areas comprised in Himachal Pradesh immediately before 1st November, 1966 [during the period between the first day of April, 1948 and the first day of April, 1956] in record-of-rights or in [a periodical] record whereby the land is shown as under self cultivation shall not be presumed to be true: [Provided further that the record-of-rights and periodical record, prepared by means of computerization in the prescribed manner shall be presumed to be true and shall be deemed to have been prepared under this chapter.]? 14. 14. A bare perusal of Section 45 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act demonstrates that though presumption of truth is attached to the said entries, however, the said presumption is rebuttable. This Court has held in State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Ajay Vij and others, 2011 (1) Shim.LC 452 , as under:- ?19. There is no foundation for entering plaintiff as tenant on suit land vide jamabandi for the year 1966-67 Ex. DW-1/A. In Durga (deceased) and others v. Milkhi Ram and others, 1969 P.L.J. 105, the Supreme Court has upheld the finding of the High Court that although the presumption would be in favour of the later entries but that presumption was a rebuttable one and it would stand rebutted by the fact that the alteration in the later entries was made unauthorisedly or mistakenly, there being no material to justify the change of entries. 20. In the present case, there is nothing on record on what basis the entry in jamabandi for the year 1966-67 was made. Once the change in favour of plaintiff in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 has not been established, the subsequent entries in revenue record are based on change reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 which was unauthorized, hence respondents cannot take benefit of such change. Therefore, no presumption of truth is attached to revenue record showing plaintiff and thereafter his successor as tenant over the suit land from 1966-67 onwards. 15. Therefore, it is evident from the law as has been discussed above that the presumption of truth attached to said revenue entries is rebuttable. 16. In the present case, in my considered view, the entries recorded in favour of the plaintiff in jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ext. PA stood rebutted by the defendant. as has been held by both the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to persuade this Court that the findings returned to this effect by both learned Courts below were perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. PA stood rebutted by the defendant. as has been held by both the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to persuade this Court that the findings returned to this effect by both learned Courts below were perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. A perusal of the judgments passed by both learned Courts below demonstrates that both the learned Courts below have taken into consideration the entire evidence placed on record and both learned Courts below after threadbare discussion of the same have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not able to explain as to how entries came to be recorded in favour of the plaintiff or his father in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ext. PA. 17. Therefore, in my considered view, the findings returned by both learned Courts below to the effect that the change in revenue entries had been made without any order of the competent authority and there was no material to justify the change of revenue entries, are correct findings and same do not call for any interference. The substantial question of law stands answered accordingly. 18. In view of my findings returned above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. Miscellaneous application (s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of.