JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants, claiming therein a decree for declaration to the effect that lease deed of 4.12.1998 be declared as wrong and illegal as also for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs, for permanent prohibitory injunction, stood partly decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the defendant No.2/appellant herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereupon, it concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, defendant No.2/appellant herein, is driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have been coming in possession of the land comprising Khewat No.587 min, Khatauni No.876 min, khasra No.3480, measuring 1415 sq. meters, situated in mauja Sundernagar/26/8, Teh. Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The plaintiffs have been enjoined rights of cutting grass, lopping branches of trees, grazing cattle over the suit land since the time of their ancestors. The plaintiffs are agriculturists and as such they are having rights of grazing cattle, cutting grass and lopping branches of trees over the suit land. It is further asserted that defendant No.2 had leased out the suit land in faovur of defendant No.1, Puran Chand on 4.12.1998 without the permission of the plaintiffs and giving them notice and thereafter mutation No.1392 was also attested illegally. The said lease deed of 4.12.1998 is illegal, null and void as the same is defeating aforementioned rights of the plaintiffs over the suit land. On 19.3.2001, the defendants threatened to raise construction over the suit land. The plaintiffs sought a decree for declaration that the lease deed of 4.12.1998 be declared wrong and illegal and that the defendant be restrained from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 3. The defendants contested the suit and they filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1 in his written statement, has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, non service of notice under Section 80 of the CP and estoppel. On merits, it is pleaded that defendant No.2 had legally leased out the suit land in favour of defendant no.1 by executing a legal and valid lease deed and since then defendant No.1 was coming in possession of the same. The plaintiff have no right, title or interest over the suit land. On merits, it is pleaded that defendant No.2 had legally leased out the suit land in favour of defendant no.1 by executing a legal and valid lease deed and since then defendant No.1 was coming in possession of the same. The plaintiff have no right, title or interest over the suit land. The defendant No.1 had paid price of all trees standing over the suit land and that the plaintiffs were illegally interfering with his possession over the suit land. It is further asserted that defendant No.1 had started running an Educational Institution on the suit land for the benefit of general pubic. Defendant No.2 being owner of the suit land was competent to lease out the same in favour of defendant No.1. 4. Defendant No.2 in its written statement has taken preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit land which has been legally leased out in favour of defendant No.1 and thus defendant No.1 was coming in possession of the suit land. It is further asserted that Devi Dass, father of the plaintiffs had encroached upon the suit land, who was legally ejected from the same by Settlement Officer vide order dated 17.7.1979 passed in file No.2954. The suit land was given on lease to defendant No.1 for a period of 45 years on annual rent of Rs. 3,17,316/-. The plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit land. Defendant NO.2 also refuted the case of the plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed replications to the written statements of the defendants, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statements and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs along with others have grazing rights over the suit land comprising in khasra No.3480, as alleged, if so its effect? OPP. 2. Whether the lease with regard to suit land executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is wrong, null and void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether mutation concerning the lease is also wrong, null and void, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the lease with regard to suit land executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is wrong, null and void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether mutation concerning the lease is also wrong, null and void, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non compliance of provisions of Section 80 C.P.C.? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit?OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 9. Whether the father of the plaintiffs namely Devi Ram was in unauthorised possession of the suIt land and he was evicted vide order dated 17.7.1979, as alleged? OPD. 10. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/ respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the State of H.P./appellant herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the State of H.P./appellants herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein it assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of learned Appellate Court qua lease deed Ex.DW2/A are sustainable in the eyes of law? 2. In case the lease deed is held to be valid, whether relief of injunction could be granted vis-a-vis the plaintiffs/respondents? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 9. Suit khasra No.3480, measuring 1415 sq. meters, as divulged by Ex.,P-1, exhibit whereof is a jamabandi apposite to the suit land, is recorded to be owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh, (i) whereas, the estate right holders are recorded to be holding “bartandari” rights thereon. In the remarks column of Ex.P-1, an entry is borne of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, holding, right to cut grass, grown upon the suit khasra number. In the remarks column of Ex.P-1, an entry is borne of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, holding, right to cut grass, grown upon the suit khasra number. Subsequent thereto, under Ex.DW2/A, a lease deed with respect to the suit khasra number, was, executed inter se the authorised official, of the State of Himachal Pradesh vis-a-vis the competent signatory of defendant No.1. Since, Ex.P-1, is the copy of the jamabandi, preceding the execution of Ex.DW2/A, inter se the competent signatory of State of Himachal Pradesh and the competent signatory of defendant No.1, hence, reflections occurring therein, of, the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs, one, Devi Ram, enjoying the rights to cut grass, growing upon the suit khasra number, enjoy a presumption of truth. The aforesaid exercise of “baratndari' rights, upon the suit khasra number(s), by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was an indefeasible customary right vested therein, in him, (i) whereupon, the State of Himachal Pradesh, was, precluded to alienate the suit khasra number, vis-a-vis contesting defendant No.1, by its executing lease deed Ex.DW2/A vis-a-vis defendant No.1. Execution of Ex.DW2/A, would acquire formidable validity, when preceding therewith, the aforesaid Devi Ram was evidently heard AND also his objections were elicited vis-a-vis the execution of Ex.DW2/A, whereafter, his objections were pronounced, to be untenable, (ii) thereafter, State of Himachal Pradesh proceeding to execute lease deed borne in Ex.DW2/A vis-a-vis the contesting defendant No.1. However, no evidence has been adduced on record, wherein any graphic display occurs, of, preceding the execution of Ex.DW2/A, defendant No.2 inviting the objections of Devi Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs nor obviously the latter projected his objections thereto, nor obviously any order invalidating his objections was pronounced. Contrarily, since preceding therewith, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, stand reflected in Ex.P-1 to be holding “baratandari” rights, upon the suit land, rather rendered them to enjoy a presumption of truth, whereupon, hence, the subsequent thereto, execution of a lease deed vis-a-vis the suit khasra number inter se the State of Himachal Pradesh and defendant No.1, was, obviously stained with a vice of its infracting the principles of natural justice, thereupon, also it begets a concomitant vice of invalidation. 10. 10. Even though, the aforesaid reflections occurring in the jamabandi apposite to the suit land, prepared in the year 1994-1995, yet the effects, of the afore referred apposite reflections occurring therein, besides, the presumption of truth enjoyed by them, was concerted, to be displaced by the defendants (i) by theirs placing reliance upon Ex.D-1, exhibit whereof is a rapat, manifesting the factum, of, in pursuance to an order recorded on 17.7.1979, in proceedings drawn against the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, one Devi Ram, against his making unauthorised encroachment upon the suit khasra number, thereupon hence, his being evicted from the suit khasra number. Even though, a presumption of truth is attached to Ex. D-1, it being prepared by a public officer in discharge of public functions, yet the aforesaid presumption, would acquire, fortified vigour only upon (a) the order referred therein being adduced on record; (b) officials, who implemented the aforesaid order stepping into the witness box; (c) witnesses, qua delivery of possession from the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant concerned, being examined. However, all the aforesaid pieces of evidence, for enhancing, the presumption of truth concerted to be ascribed to Ex.D-1, remains not adduced into evidence. Consequently, any corrections in consonance therewith, made, in the revenue records concerned, is also insignificant, (d) rather when the jamabandi apposite, to the suit land, appertaining to the years much subsequent, to Ex.D-1, jamabandi whereof is comprised in Ex.P-1, AND it appertains to the year 1994-95, hence, immediately prior to the execution of the apt lease deed, (e) rather makes contrary thereto reflections, of, the predecessor-in-interest, of the plaintiffs holding “baratandari” rights upon the suit land, rather fortifyingly enhances the vigour of the aforesaid inference, of, presumption of truth enjoyed by Ex. D-1, AND by any jamabandi prepared in consonance therewith, being hence firmly eroded. In aftermath, no reliance is amenable to be placed on Ex. D-1. Since, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiffs, is, in the remarks column of Ex. D-1, AND by any jamabandi prepared in consonance therewith, being hence firmly eroded. In aftermath, no reliance is amenable to be placed on Ex. D-1. Since, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiffs, is, in the remarks column of Ex. D-1, hence recorded to be solitary person, enjoying “baratandari” rights upon the suit land, hence, with other co-villagers, obviously not along with him, enjoying the apposite rights, thereon, (i) thereupon it was not enjoined upon the plaintiffs, to on behalf of other co-villager purportedly holding “baratandari” rights upon the suit khasra number, also implead them as co-plaintiffs, (ii) nor hence they were enjoined to make an averment of theirs on behalf of other co-villagers, who purportedly along with them enjoy “baratandari” rights over the suit land, hence, instituting a representative suit. 11. The upshot of the above discussion, is that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs, have, by adducing overwhelming evidence, comprised in the evidence of the plaintiffs', corroborated by the evidence of the Lamberdar of the village, besides by Ex. P-1, hence, proven, of theirs holding settled possession, upon, the suit land, thereupon, the decree of injunction concurrently recorded by both the learned Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs, does not, suffer from any vice of any mis-appreciation of material on record. 12. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law are answered, in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and against the appellant. 13. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.