JUDGMENT : Mr. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (Oral) The appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendants') have preferred this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Kangra whereby he reversed the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Dehra. 2. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'Plaintiffs') filed suit for declaration along with permanent injunction on the ground that the suit land measuring 0-05-53 hectares comprised in khasra No. 1327 situate in mohal and mauza Chaplah Tappa Chanaur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, was owned and possessed by their father late Subedar Partap Singh. Plaintiffs after the death of their father, inherited the land, but during the course of settlement, defendants in collusion with the settlement staff got mutation no. 884 sanctioned in their favour on 26.7.1978 showing them to be the owner in possession of the suit land. After attestation of mutation, respondents had been openly proclaiming themselves to be the owner and were interfering in the suit land, necessitating the filing of the suit. 3. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding, maintainability, non joinder, locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction, limitation and the suit being false and frivolous were raised. On merits, it was pleaded that the land in dispute was an abadi area and the same was owned by the defendants, and, therefore, mutation was rightly attested in their favour. 4. Plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement wherein they denied the allegations of the defendants and reiterated their claim which was set out in the plaint. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court vide order dated 15.10.1999 and 27.1.2001 framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff along with his brother are owner of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the possession of defendant over the house is permissive, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of the disputed house? OPP. 3(a) Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by operation of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act? OPD. 3(b) Whether in the alternative the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of his adverse possession? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether this suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 6. OPD. 3(b) Whether in the alternative the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of his adverse possession? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether this suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 6. Whether this court has not jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. 7. Whether this suit is not properly valued? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff are estopped to file the present suit? OPD. 9. Relief." 6. The learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. However, on appeal having been carried to the court of learned District Judge, Kangra, the said judgment and decree was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents was ordered to be decreed. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court, defendants/appellants has preferred the instant appeal which was admitted on 17.11.2004 on the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether the findings of the learned first appellate court are dehors the evidence on record?" I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully and meticulously gone through the records of the case. 8. It would be noticed that learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the respondents only on the basis of mutation No. 884 by concluding that in absence of the mutation being challenged, the same had attained finality. It was further held that since mutation was attested by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, therefore, presumption of truth was attached to such mutation. 9. What would be the evidentiary and legal value of the mutation, has been considered by me in RSA No. 509 of 2001, titled Lekh Ram & ors v. Roop Ram & ors and it was held as under: "26. Law is well settled that mutation does not create or extinguish the title nor Has any presumptive value on the title. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and others (1996) 6 SCC 223 has held that:- "mutation of a property in the revenue records does not create or extinguish The title nor has any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour the mutation is ordered to pay land revenue in question. 27. It will be apposite here to refer to Baleshwar Tewari (Dead) by LRs. It only enables the person in whose favour the mutation is ordered to pay land revenue in question. 27. It will be apposite here to refer to Baleshwar Tewari (Dead) by LRs. And others v. Sheojatan Tiwary and others (1997) 5 SCC 112 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "15. ......Entries in Revenue records is the paradise of the patwari and the tiller of the soil is rarely concerned with the same. So long as his possession and enjoyment is not interdicted by due process and course of law, he is least concerned with entries. It is common knowledge in rural India that a raiyat always regards the land he ploughs as his dominion and generally obeys, with moral fibre the command of the intermediary so long as his possession is not disturbed. Therefore, creation of records is a camouflage to defeat just and legal right or claim and interest of the raiyat, the tiller of the soil on whom the Act confers title to the land he tills." 10. Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants would then argue that the learned lower appellate court has clearly ignored that the suit was barred by limitation inasmuch as the mutation was attested on 26.7.1978 whereas the suit came to be filed only on 13.8.1993 and was thus time barred. 11. I do not find force in this contention of the appellants for the simple reason that firstly there is no issue framed to this effect. Secondly as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baleshwar Tewari's case (supra) that so long as the possession is not disturbed, there is no requirement of the actual tiller of the land to approach a court of law to have the mutation set aside, as it does not create and extinguish the title nor has any presumptive value on the title. 12. Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants would then argue that the appellants have become owner of the suit land by operation of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and in the alternative had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. In response to such preposition, Ms. 12. Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants would then argue that the appellants have become owner of the suit land by operation of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and in the alternative had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. In response to such preposition, Ms. Ranjana Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the plea now sought to be raised by the appellants are mutually destructive and self contradictory pleas as the former plea is based on lawful title, whereas the latter plea is based on hostile animus and possession. 13. This question, in my opinion, has been rendered totally academic in view of the specific issues 3(a) and (b) (supra) having been though framed but given up as non pressed before the learned trial court. 14. Now once an issue is not pressed before the trial court, it is not open to the party doing so to agitate it over again in the court of appeal. (Refer Prasanna Kumar v. Adya Sakti Dassi, AIR 1942 Cal 586; Premchand Manickchand v. Fort Gloster Jute Manufacturing Co.Ltd, 64 Cal WN 103 = ( AIR 1959 Cal 620 ); Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1959 SC 135 and Venkata Narasinha Naidu v. Bhasyakarlu Naidu, (1902) 6 Cal WN 641, Mohammed Seraj v. Adibar Rahaman Sheikh & ors, AIR 1968 Cal. 550 (V 55 C 99), Taher Ali Khan v. Abdul Hakim & ors, AIR 2006 Cal 124 , Ravi Kant v. Bhupender Kumar, AIR 2008 HP 31 . 15. As already observed earlier, the trial court solely on the basis of the mutation decided the suit as if the mutation was a document of title. The learned lower appellate court, therefore, committed no illegality or irregularity in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by observing that the mutation could not pass on any title of the suit land in favour of defendants/appellants. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly against the appellant. 16. Having said so, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.