JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Plaintiffs are in second appeal before this Court. They are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal (RBT) No. 166/01/94, dated 27.3.2002, whereby the appeal has been allowed and on reversal of the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1994 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Una, in Civil Suit No. 91/1987, decree of declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the plaintiffs against Amin Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 1(a) to 1(j) (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction has been dismissed. 2. The subject matter of dispute in the present lis is land measuring 6 kanals 9 marlas entered in khewat No. 1328 min, khatauni No. 1681, bearing Kh. No. R4/24/1, as per the entries in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) Ext. P-16, situated in Village Pandoga, Hadbast No. 195, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the joint owners of the suit land along with proforma respondents. Sh. Amin Chand, defendant No. 1 (since deceased) being a clever and head strong person, managed the entries of the suit land in the column of possession in his name in connivance with revenue staff at the back and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The same being contrary to the actual and factual position on the spot, have been claimed to be ineffective, in-operative, having no binding effect upon their rights, title and interest in the suit land. The deceased defendant allegedly started causing interference over the suit land consequent upon the false entries in the revenue record showing him to be in possession thereof. The plaintiffs requested him time and again to admit their claim but to no avail, hence, the suit for declaration to the effect that it is the plaintiffs along with the proforma respondents-defendants, the owners-in-possession of the suit land and the entries to the contrary were sought to be declared as illegal, null and void and not binding upon their rights, title and interest therein. As a consequential relief, the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any kind of interference over the suit land was also sought. 3. As a consequential relief, the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any kind of interference over the suit land was also sought. 3. The deceased defendant Amin Chand when put to notice has denied the contentions to the contrary in the written statement being wrong and came forward with the version that he is in possession of the suit land in the capacity of a tenant at will and on payment of rent since long. Now, he has acquired title in the suit land by virtue of operation of law i.e. H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 as well as rules framed there under. The plaintiffs allegedly, have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The suit, as such, was sought to be dismissed. The defendants No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 to 8 in separate written statements filed on their behalf have, however, admitted the claim of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint to be true and correct. 4. Replication to the written statement filed of first defendant was also filed. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Judge has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners-in-possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether revenue entries contrary to the plaintiffs’ interest over the suit land are null and void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD1. 5. Relief.” 5. Ram Lok, plaintiff No. 4 has appeared in the witness-box as PW- 2. The plaintiffs have also examined Sh. Parkash Chand, record-keeper as PW-1, who has produced the record of case No. 24/69 titled Smt. Kalawati vs. Custodian and that of case No. 9/Redemption titled as Arjan Singh vs. Smt. Kala Devi decided on 9.7.1976. PW-3 Paras Ram is the then Kanungo, Una circle. He has proved the certified copy of case No. 24/69 Ext. PW-3/A. His report is Ext. PW-3/B and the report submitted by Sh. Dharam Singh Kanungo is Ext. PW-3/C. PW-4 Dildar Singh is the husband of Kalawati. He has proved copy of application dated 21.7.1975 Ext. PW-4/A filed by his wife Smt. Kalawati for redemption of the suit land. The statements Ext. PW-4/B and PW-4/C were recorded during the proceedings in that application. PW-3/B and the report submitted by Sh. Dharam Singh Kanungo is Ext. PW-3/C. PW-4 Dildar Singh is the husband of Kalawati. He has proved copy of application dated 21.7.1975 Ext. PW-4/A filed by his wife Smt. Kalawati for redemption of the suit land. The statements Ext. PW-4/B and PW-4/C were recorded during the proceedings in that application. On the other hand, Amin Chand defendant No. 1 (since deceased) has stepped into the witness-box as DW-1. The reliance has also been placed on the revenue record produced in evidence by learned counsel representing the parties in their respective statements recorded separately. 6. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties has arrived at a conclusion that it is the plaintiffs and proforma defendants owners-in-possession of the suit land and that the entries to the contrary in revenue record in the name of Amin Chand, defendant No. 1 are wrong, hence not binding upon them. Issues No. 1 & 2 were therefore answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The questions of limitation and maintainability of the suit were not approved by learned trial Court while answering issues No. 3 & 4 against defendant No. 1. The suit was, therefore, decreed for the relief sought in the plaint. 7. Learned First Appellate Court in the appeal has, however, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree under challenge in the main appeal. 8. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds, inter alia, that the evidence available on record has not been appreciated in its right perspective and thereby learned lower appellate Court has committed a grave error while setting aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The findings that the suit was time barred are absolutely illegal as according to the plaintiffs, they were never out of possession of the suit land. The findings that cause of action firstly arose in favour of the plaintiffs in the year 1969 or at the most in 1976 are stated to be not correct and rather far fetched. The evidence produced by the plaintiffs amply demonstrate that the name of defendant Amin Chand was merely a paper entry because on redemption of the same, Smt. Kalawati was put in possession thereof vide rapat rojnamcha Ext. PC on 18.5.1976. The evidence produced by the plaintiffs amply demonstrate that the name of defendant Amin Chand was merely a paper entry because on redemption of the same, Smt. Kalawati was put in possession thereof vide rapat rojnamcha Ext. PC on 18.5.1976. The order to this effect was passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade in the application Ext. PW-4/A. Initially, the mortgage was got redeemed by aforesaid Smt. Kalawati and Shiv Devi. The remaining plaintiffs and proforma defendants got the suit land to the extent of their respective shares redeemed from said Smt. Kalawati and Shiv Devi on payment of their share of the mortgage money. The lower appellate Court, as such, has erred in law in quashing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 9. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the findings of the Ld. Additional District Judge, Una qua the cause of action first accrued to the owners in 1969 and at the most in the year 1976 is correct in view of the documents Ext.PD and PC vide which the actual possession was delivered by the Revenue Agency in legal proceedings? 2. Whether the lower appellate court misinterpreted the documentary evidence and misread the oral evidence placed on the record by the plaintiffs especially the documents Ext.PC, PD, Ext.PW4/A to Ext.PW4/C and Ext.P9? 3. Whether the finding in favour of the respondent as owner in possession is void in view of the mutation entered in the name of the appellants after the redemption of the land in suit vide Ext.PY i.e. mutation No. 4606 decided on 26.9.1981? 10. Learned lower Appellate Court has arrived at a conclusion that the suit is time barred. On merits, while making reference of the entries in the jamabandies Ext. D-1 to D-7 that Amin Chand was recorded in possession thereof as tenant at will has concluded that the presumption of truth is attached to the long standing entries in the revenue record and as such it is said Sh. Amin Chand, who in the opinion of learned lower appellate Court, had acquired proprietary rights in the suit land by virtue of the operation of law i.e. H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The evidence, as has come on record by way of judgment and decree Ext. P-5, passed in the previous suit bearing No. 226/1987 and also that Ext. The evidence, as has come on record by way of judgment and decree Ext. P-5, passed in the previous suit bearing No. 226/1987 and also that Ext. P-7, passed by learned lower appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 202 of 1993 as well as by this Court Ext. P-9 in RSA No. 25/1994 has been brushed aside, while concluding that the same was with regard to some other land, including the land bearing Kh. No. R4/24/2 and not to the suit land which is bearing Kh. No. R4/24/1. Being so, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was quashed and set aside and the suit dismissed. 11. The substantial questions of law as formulated hereinabove are if taken for consideration in the light of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record, the present is not a case where it can be said by any stretch of imagination that the suit is time barred for the reason that the suit land which is part of the land measuring 502 kanal 14 marlas was mortgaged with custodian and it is Smt. Kalawati, the widow of PW-4 and one of the owners thereof got the same redeemed consequent upon order dated 9.6.1969 Ext. PX passed by Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Una in case No. 26/269. Said Smt. Kalawati, the co-mortgagor had deposited the mortgage money i.e. Rs. 4,000/- and the possession was delivered to her on 21.7.1969 as per the rapat made in rojnamcha Ext. PD. Consequently, the possession was delivered to said Smt. Kalawati. Smt. Chander Kali, plaintiff No. 1 (since dead) and other co-sharers had moved an application Ext. P-3 and got redeemed the land to the extent of their share out of total land measuring 502 kanal 14 marlas. They were put in possession thereof as is apparent from the entries in the rapat rojnamcha dated 18.5.1976 Ext. PC. Nothing finds mention in Rapat Rojnamchas Ext. PC and PD that deceased Amin Chand was in possession of the land measuring 502 kanal 14 marlas or for that matter any portion thereof i.e. suit land. 12. They were put in possession thereof as is apparent from the entries in the rapat rojnamcha dated 18.5.1976 Ext. PC. Nothing finds mention in Rapat Rojnamchas Ext. PC and PD that deceased Amin Chand was in possession of the land measuring 502 kanal 14 marlas or for that matter any portion thereof i.e. suit land. 12. True it is that as per the jamabandies, there were long standing revenue entries showing the suit land in the possession of aforesaid Amin Chand, the deceased defendant, however, such entries are baseless as order, if any, passed by competent revenue authority justifying the making of such entries qua suit land in the name of said defendant has not been produced in evidence. The entries qua possession of the suit land without any basis as such are illegal, null and void, hence not binding upon the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs in the suit land. While arriving at such a conclusion, this Court is supported by the judgment of this Court in Kashi Ram vs. Harbhajan Singh Bhajji, AIR 2002 HP 154 . The relevant text of the judgment reads as follows: “12. It was for the first time in the Jamabandi for the years 1978-1979 Ex. PW-1/E entry was made showing defendant to be a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land whereas the plaintiff was shown to be owner in the column of ownership. In khasra Girdwari from kharif 1974 to Rabi 1984, copy Ex. PW-1 /D, defendant is shown to be a non-occupancy tenant on payment of annual rent of Rs. 80/-. Here another document that needs to be note on which emphasis was laid on behalf of the defendant is Ex. PW-4/K. When it is translated into English it reads as under :-- "........Copy of verification and attestation of Jamabandi mauja Bhyali Nichli Pargana Diwari Tehsil Arki for the years 20/21-2-1980. To be read in headlines. Item No. Jamabandi 1 to 2 total 2/4 Khata Khatauni was undertaken. No. 1 On the khata possession of Kanshi Ram son of Shri Durga Singh son of Bhandi resident of Kyari was attested. Persons present and Kanshi stated that Harbhajan singh owner lives in the area of Haryana, and Kanshi is a non-occupancy tenant in possession on this area for 13/14 years, and he pays lump-sum annual rent of Rs. 80/-. Accordingly entry of possession was corrected. Persons present and Kanshi stated that Harbhajan singh owner lives in the area of Haryana, and Kanshi is a non-occupancy tenant in possession on this area for 13/14 years, and he pays lump-sum annual rent of Rs. 80/-. Accordingly entry of possession was corrected. Sir, Item No. 1 It is hereby verified that copy is true as per original. Fee has been received from the applicant. Signed in Hindi (Surajarorob) Patwari 13. At the time of hearing it was not disputed on behalf of the parties that change in the record of rights as well as periodical record is permissible, provided, if is carried out in accordance with the provisions of H. P. Land Revenue Act as well as H.P. Land Records Manual, 1954, (this case pertains to the period when this land Record Manual was in force in the Mahasu District where this land was situate). 14. Though, learned counsel for the defendant persisted with vehemence that even translation Ex. PW-4/K (supra) was an order passed by the competent Revenue Officer under law. She was unable to explain and satisfy the Court as to how this order came to be passed and under what authority of law. To be fair to her it may also be observed that she did not dispute that this order on its reading appears to have been passed in the absence of the plaintiff. This otherwise what emanates from Ex. PW-4/K. 15. Therefore, in the absence of any admission on the part of the plaintiff conceding the possession of the plaintiff so as to enable the Revenue Authorities to change the entries on its basis; or in the absence of any legal order from either a Revenue or Civil Court, presumption of truth attached to the entries contained in Ex. PW-1/E is not available to the defendant. Though Ms. Mehta submitted that the presumption is still available. To the specific query of the Court as to how the entries were changed as observed hereinabove for the first time in the year 1978-1979, no explanation could be given by her. In these circumstances, how the matter needs to be looked into, is no more res integra. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Durga v. Milkhi Ram 1969 PLJ 105. In these circumstances, how the matter needs to be looked into, is no more res integra. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Durga v. Milkhi Ram 1969 PLJ 105. What was observed in this case and squarely covers the present case is extracted herein below :-- ".......Where the earlier revenue entries were changed in the later revenue entries and the change was effected without any mutation and there was no order of the revenue authorities showing how the change was made, held, although the presumption (under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 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 mistakably, there being no material to justify the change of entries........." 17. At the risk of repetition, it may be observed that there is no lawful order on record authorizing the change in entry, as such, no benefit can be derived by the defendant either from the entries contained in Jamabandi for the years 1978-1979 Ex. PW-1/E, or Ex. PW-4/K supra.” 13. Otherwise also, as per own testimony of deceased defendant Amin Chand, he was serving at Jullandhar. He has not been residing in village Pandoga. He was never having bulls to plough the suit land. It is not understandable as to how he had been in cultivating possession of the suit land. If coming to entries in Khasra girdawris in Ext. P-19, the suit land has been shown as birani and banjar kadim i.e. uncultivable, however, interestingly enough, it is during kharif crop, maize was shown to be cultivated therein whereas in rabi in 1984, wheat. Similar entries find mention in Ext. P-20 because as per the entries in this document, the suit land at a time has been shown birani and uncultivable and at occasions crops like paddy and wheat etc. shown to be cultivated therein. When its nature is birani, it is not understandable as to how crops could have been cultivated therein. Such entries are also without any substance. P-20 because as per the entries in this document, the suit land at a time has been shown birani and uncultivable and at occasions crops like paddy and wheat etc. shown to be cultivated therein. When its nature is birani, it is not understandable as to how crops could have been cultivated therein. Such entries are also without any substance. The fact, therefore, remains that the suit land after its redemption from Custodian Department remained throughout in possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants, however, when on the basis of the wrong entries qua his possession in revenue record, the defendant No. 1 Amin Chand (since dead) started causing interference in the suit land and not desisted from doing so even on being asked by the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit was well within the period of limitation and learned lower appellate Court has erroneously concluded that the cause of action had arisen in favour of plaintiffs either in 1969 or at least in 1976. The findings, so recorded are contrary to the evidence available on record. The substantial question of law at Sr. No. 1 hereinabove stands answered accordingly. 14. True it is that the presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the revenue record, such as jamabandi, however, in view of documentary evidence as well as oral evidence discussed hereinabove, the same stands rebutted. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in Sant Ram vs. Faquiroo and another, AIR 1985 HP 10 and in Smt. Surinder Kaur vs. Mohinder Bahadur Singh, 1978 SLJ (HP) 79 is not applicable in the case in hand. 15. The previous litigation i.e. Civil Suit No. 226/1987 decided vide judgment and decree Ext. P-5 was in relation to other lands, including the land bearing Kh. No. R4/24/2, whereas Khasra number of the suit land is R4/24/1 and in that suit, the contesting party was defendant No. 1 Amin Chand. In that suit also, the cause of action was same and similar against the said defendant. Learned trial Court has decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 25.9.1991 Ext. P-5 and P-6, respectively. 16. The appeal, preferred by said Sh. Amin Chand in the learned lower appellate Court was disposed of being time barred vide order Ext. P-7. He had brought the matter to this Court by filing RSA No. 25/94. The same was also dismissed vide judgment Ext. P-9. P-5 and P-6, respectively. 16. The appeal, preferred by said Sh. Amin Chand in the learned lower appellate Court was disposed of being time barred vide order Ext. P-7. He had brought the matter to this Court by filing RSA No. 25/94. The same was also dismissed vide judgment Ext. P-9. Said Sh. Amin Chand was neither held to be owner-in-possession of the said land as tenant at will nor having become owner thereof on conferment of proprietary rights. As a matter of fact, the land viz. subject matter of dispute in that suit was also part and parcel of the suit land in the present case for the reason that Kh. number thereof was R4/24/2 whereas that of the suit land is Kh. No. R4/24/1. Therefore, the findings recorded by learned lower appellate Court that the above documentary evidence pertains to some other land, hence is not applicable in the case in hand, are perverse and not legally sustainable. The law laid down by this Court in Daulat Ram and ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors., 1979 Shim. L.C. 215 and in Mehar Chand and ors. vs. Rakesh and ors., Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 1378, is not attracted in this case. 17. Now, if coming to substantial question of law No. 2, the documentary evidence i.e. rapat rojnamchas Ext. PC and PD, the application filed for redemption of the mortgage by Kalawati, one of the owners and co-mortgagor and the statements Ext. PW-4/B and PW-4/C reveals that the land measuring 502 kanal 14 marlas was ordered to be redeemed in favour of said Kalawati and possession thereof was delivered to her by Sh. Dharam Singh, the then field Kanungo. The report of Dharam Singh is Ext. PW-3/C. Other reports are Ext. PW-3/A and PW-3/B, which was submitted by Paras Ram PW-3, Circle Kanungo. The documents Ext. PC and PD are the rapats made in Rojnamcha Vakiati which reveal that firstly on redemption of the entire land, the possession thereof was delivered to Smt. Kalawati on 21.7.1969, subsequently in favour of Smt. Chander Kali and others on payment of their share of redemption money by them to Smt. Kalawati on 18.5.1976. This evidence remained un-rebutted and uncontroverted. Being so, had deceased defendant Amin Chand been in possession of the entire land or any portion thereof, it should have been reflected so in the rapat rojnamchas Ext. This evidence remained un-rebutted and uncontroverted. Being so, had deceased defendant Amin Chand been in possession of the entire land or any portion thereof, it should have been reflected so in the rapat rojnamchas Ext. PC and PD. Therefore, there is no question of his being in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenant since 1945-46. Otherwise also, the tenancy is creature of an agreement. The agreement may be either oral or in writing. No evidence has been produced by the defendants to show that there exists an agreement qua creation of tenancy by the owners in favour of deceased defendant Amin Chand. There is also no evidence qua payment of rent except for the entries in the jamabandies Ext. D-1 to D-7. Being so, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that Amin Chand was inducted as tenant so far as the suit land is concerned and that he has now acquired title therein by way of operation of law i.e. H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The learned lower appellate Court has, therefore, mis-appreciated, misconstrued and misread the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties on both sides during the course of trial. Therefore, on this score, the findings recorded by learned lower appellate Court are vitiated, hence not legally sustainable. The substantial question of law No. 2 is answered accordingly. 18. In view of above findings and also that the suit land which admittedly was mortgaged by the owners with Custodian was got redeemed by Smt. Kalawati and Shiv Devi on payment of Rs. 4,000/- towards mortgage money, the possession thereof was delivered to them. Consequently, mutation No. 4606 Ext. PY was also decided in their favour on 26.9.1981. In view of the overwhelming evidence that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants remained in possession of the suit land throughout after keeping the same redeemed from the mortgagee, the Custodian and mere entries showing the deceased defendant Amin Chand in possession thereof are without any supporting evidence. Learned lower appellate Court has went wrong in reversing the well considered and well reasoned judgment passed by learned trial Court. Therefore, irrespective of the attestation of the mutation Ext. PY, the findings to the contrary in favour of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants recorded by learned lower appellate Court are vitiated, hence not legally sustainable. Learned lower appellate Court has went wrong in reversing the well considered and well reasoned judgment passed by learned trial Court. Therefore, irrespective of the attestation of the mutation Ext. PY, the findings to the contrary in favour of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants recorded by learned lower appellate Court are vitiated, hence not legally sustainable. The substantial question of law at Sr. No. 3 also stands answered accordingly. 19. In view of the above, the case law cited on behalf of the contesting respondents-defendants i.e. Kamini Kumar Basu and another vs. Birendra Nath Basu and another, 1930 Privy Council 100 and in Shri Nanda vs. Shri Punnu Ram and others, 1982 SLJ (H.P.) 37 is hardly of any help to their case. 20. In view of what has been said hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is neither legally nor factually sustainable. The same, as such, is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is upheld and the suit decreed.