JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 61-NL/13 of 2000, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2000, passed by learned Sub-Judge Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the plaintiffs-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant over the suit land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 23 min/24, Khasra Nos. 14(7-9), 18(0-5), 37(4-15), 60(2-9), 81(0-11), 85(0-3), 89(0-10), 123(0-1), 313(0-2), 221(0-4), 223(0-7), 224(0-7), Kittas 12, measuring 17 Bighas 3 Biswas, situated in village Beh Kanaitan, Pargana Dharampur Pahar, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’). It is averred by the plaintiffs that the defendant is residing in village Bagguwal for the last more than 20 years and as per Jamabandi for the year 1995-96, plaintiffs alongwith proforma defendants are recorded in possession of the suit land, which possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants is absolute and unfettered to the knowledge of the defendant. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that the suit land is in cultivating possession since the year 1931-32 i.e. during the life time of the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that initially the suit land was mortgaged and mutation No. 30 dated 20.9.2005 BK was entered and the factum of the mortgage was rejected by the Tehsildar, Nalagarh. However, the possession of the plaintiffs continued since 20.9.2005 BK and since then the plaintiffs have been occupying this land exclusively to the knowledge of the defendant or his predecessor-in-title conclusively and since then their possession remained peaceful and continuous. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendant or his predecessor-in-title never objected to the possession of the plaintiffs or even during the life time of their father over the suit land. It is also alleged by the plaintiffs that in the first settlement, predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, Sh. Mast Ram, was in possession of the suit land and Rulia was its first owner. It is also alleged by the plaintiffs that in the first settlement, predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, Sh. Mast Ram, was in possession of the suit land and Rulia was its first owner. It is averred by the plaintiffs that the defendant had admitted the plaintiffs and proforma defendants to be owners in possession of suit land by his act and conduct and he himself or through Rulia never objected the occupation of the suit land since the year 1931. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that the defendant is estopped to interfere in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It is also the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendant threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them form the suit land under the guise of illegal order of the revenue authorities. In this background, the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference in their possession over the suit land. 3. Defendant, by way of filing written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground of maintainability, locus standi and jurisdiction. On merits, it is alleged by the defendant that he is owner in possession of the suit land, the plaintiffs and proforma defendant never cultivated the land and the entries in their names are wrong and illegal. It is alleged by the defendant that the Land Reforms Officer has corrected the entry of the defendant, which order has also been upheld by the District Collector, Solan and the same has become final. It is also alleged by the defendant that the Civil Suit before Civil Court is/was not maintainable. In the aforesaid background, the defendant sought dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 4. By way of replication, the plaintiff, while denying the allegations made in the written statement, reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint and controverted the contrary averments made in the written statement. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction? OPP 2. Whether this suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether entries recorded in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiffs are wrong, illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether this suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether entries recorded in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiffs are wrong, illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPD 6. Relief.” 6. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land except in accordance with law. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, defendant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. who, taking note of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 8. In the aforesaid background, appellants-plaintiffs filed instant Regular Second Appeal laying therein challenge to the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. whereby suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed, with a prayer to quash and set aside the same. 9. This Court vide order dated 2.8.2006 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the first appellate court has committed a serious illegality in returning the finding that the plaintiffs-appellants are not in possession of the suit land, while the entries in the revenue papers since the year 1931 show them to be in possession up to the year 1996 when the order for correction of entries was passed by the Land Reforms Officer?” 10. While exploring answer to aforesaid substantial question of law framed by this Court, this Court had an occasion to peruse pleadings, evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record by respective parties, more particularly, Exs.D-1 and D-2 i.e. copies of orders dated 29.10.2006 and 31.12.1997 passed by Land Reforms Officer and Collector, Solan, District Solan respectively, perusal whereof certainly not persuade this Court to agree with the contentions/submissions made by Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs that learned first appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather, this Court is convinced and satisfied that the learned first appellate Court below has dealt with issue in question carefully and has rightly come to the conclusion that entry showing the plaintiffs to be in possession was existing wrongly in revenue record as is evident from Ex.D-1. 11. Careful perusal of aforesaid orders Exs.D-1 and D-2 suggests that respondent- defendant herein had filed Civil Suit bearing No. 173/1 in Civil Court claiming himself to be joint owner in possession of the suit land. However, fact remains that aforesaid Civil Suit filed by the respondent-defendant was withdrawn on the objection with regard to maintainability, having been raised by present appellants-plaintiffs. Vide aforesaid suit, as emerged from the record, respondent-defendant had laid challenge to the revenue entries showing appellants-plaintiffs to be owners in possession of the suit land, as reflected in Jamabandi for the year 1931-32, which further continued till year 1995-96. Since specific objection with regard to maintainability of suit was taken by appellants-plaintiffs, therefore, respondent-defendant rightly approached Land Reforms Officer for correction of entries made in the revenue record. Perusal of Ex.D-1, order dated 29.10.1996, passed by Land Reforms Officer, Nalagarh in Missal No. 23/94 clearly suggests that both the parties were heard by Land Reforms Officer before passing final order. Careful perusal of aforesaid order Ex.D-1 suggests that Land Reforms Officer, on the basis of material made available to him, came to conclusion that names of appellants-plaintiffs were wrongly entered in the column of ownership and possession in Jamabandi for the year 1931-32 and 1935-36. Land Reforms Officer further concluded that subsequent entries in favour of appellants-plaintiffs are wrong and not in accordance with law. Further perusal of Ex.D-1, placed on record by the defendant, suggests that aforesaid order dated 29.10.1996 passed by Land Reforms Officer-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh, was taken into appeal by the present appellants-plaintiff before Collector, Solan, District Solan, which came to be registered as Case No. 4/7 of 1997, instituted on 8.11.1996. Learned Collector, Solan vide its order dated 30.12.1997 upheld the order dated 29.10.1996, passed by the Land Reforms Officer, while rejecting the appeal. Learned Collector, Solan vide its order dated 30.12.1997 upheld the order dated 29.10.1996, passed by the Land Reforms Officer, while rejecting the appeal. This Court was unable to lay its hands to any document adduced on record by either of the parties suggestive of the fact that aforesaid orders having been passed by Revenue Authorities were ever assailed before competent Authority under H.P. Land Revenue Act; meaning thereby that the order dated 29.10.1996, which was further affirmed by Collector vide its order dated 30.12.1997, attained finality. This Court, after having carefully perused the aforesaid orders Exs.D-1 and D-2, finds no force in the contentions having been made by Mr. Kuthiala that the aforesaid orders, having been passed by Land Revenue Authorities, were passed at the back of appellants-plaintiffs because admittedly perusal of aforesaid orders passed by Revenue Authorities suggests that the same were passed in the presence of appellants-plaintiffs, who respectively laid challenge to the orders passed by Land Reforms Officer before the District Collector by filing an appeal. 12. After having gone through the pleadings, especially suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, this Court is compelled to agree with the averments having been made by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, representing the respondent-defendant, that suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs to defeat the mandate of order dated 29.10.1996, passed by the Land Reforms Officer, wherein entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1931-32 reflecting the name of predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-plaintiffs in the column of ownership and possession, was held to be illegal. It clearly emerge from the record that aforesaid suit was filed on 9.2.1998 i.e. after dismissal of appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff in the Court of Collector, which came to be decided on 30.12.1997 Ex.D-2. 13. After having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2, I have no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court, while decreeing the suit of appellants-plaintiffs, failed to appreciate that there was a clear cut finding recorded by the Revenue Court with regard to entry allegedly made in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs in the year 1931-32. After having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2, I have no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court, while decreeing the suit of appellants-plaintiffs, failed to appreciate that there was a clear cut finding recorded by the Revenue Court with regard to entry allegedly made in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs in the year 1931-32. Learned trial Court below also failed to take note of the fact that aforesaid order passed by the Revenue Authority was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and as such same could not be reconsidered and decided in the suit and as such, Court below had no occasion to record findings with regard to possession of the appellants-plaintiffs over the suit land. Interestingly, there is no mention, if any, of passing of aforesaid orders by Revenue Authorities in the plaint; meaning thereby that the appellants-plaintiffs, by way of filing the suit, made an attempt to hoodwink the Court. It also emerged from the record that at the first instance respondent-defendant had approached Civil Court by way of Civil Suit for correction of entries, but they were made to approach Revenue Authorities for correction of revenue record. 14. Leaving everything aside, there is no challenge, if any, to the aforesaid orders Exs.D-1 and D-2 passed by the Revenue Authorities on the application of respondent-defendant and thereafter appeal having been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, in the present suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs. Further perusal of evidence led on record by appellants-plaintiffs nowhere proves on record that they are in possession of the suit land. 15. True, it is, that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant have been shown as owners in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant in Ex.P-16 and P-15 i.e. copies of Jamabandi for the years 1996-97 and 1995-96 in the column of possession. No doubt, the legal presumption of truth is attached to these Jamabandi entries but presumption is rebuttable. 16. In the instant case, plaintiffs and proforma defendant, on the basis of the entries in the Jamabandi, cannot be held to be in possession of the suit land, especially when appellants-plaintiffs have failed to prove on record that on what basis names of Shri Kanshi Ram and Bhagtoo, predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant, came to be recorded in revenue record in the year 1931-32. When it is an admitted case of the plaintiffs that defendants are owners of the suit land, it was incumbent upon them to place on record order or direction, if any, passed by Revenue Authorities to the effect whereby S/Shri Kanshi Ram and Bhagtoo, their predecessors-in-interest were ordered to be entered in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs and their predecessors have been recorded in possession of the suit land in Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-14, copies of Jamabandi for the years 1935-36 to 1991-92. Admittedly, plaintiffs have not produced any rapat Roznamcha, from where it could be inferred that some orders were passed by the Authorities to make change in the revenue entries, which were admittedly prior to the year 1935-36, were in the name of predecessor-in-interest of respondent-defendant. Similarly, there is nothing in pleadings brought on record by the plaintiffs-appellants suggestive of the fact that they are in possession of the land as tenants and as such learned first appellate Court rightly came to conclusion that entries recorded them in the suit land is wrong and illegal and without any basis. Similarly, it is admitted case of the appellants-plaintiffs that they have not placed on record the mutation which was entered about the mortgage and moreover such mortgage was not admittedly attested in favour of the plaintiffs, rather it was cancelled by the revenue Authorities and as such learned Court below rightly concluded that the plaintiffs, on the basis of such mutation, cannot assert that their possession came to be recorded in the revenue record. Since mutation of mortgage was not attested by the Tehsildar, rather it was ordered to be rejected, entry, if any, made on the basis of the same was rightly held to be illegal by revenue Authority in its order dated 26.10.1996 Ex.D-1. 17. Apart from above, there is nothing in the oral evidence led on record by the plaintiffs, which could persuade this Court to hold that they were in possession of the suit land, rather statements made by the plaintiffs’ own witness suggests that suit land was lying vacant on the spot, as the defendant had shifted to village Bagguwal in Tehsil Kasauli. Apart from above, nature of suit land is recorded as Banjar Kadim, Gair Mumkin Bird, Ghasni, as is reflected in Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-17 i.e. copies of Jamabandi for the year 1991-92, 1995-96 and 1996-97. Apart from above, nature of suit land is recorded as Banjar Kadim, Gair Mumkin Bird, Ghasni, as is reflected in Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-17 i.e. copies of Jamabandi for the year 1991-92, 1995-96 and 1996-97. The aforesaid entries are continuous since beginning, therefore, it is evident that the suit land is not in cultivating possession of the plaintiffs. Similarly, there is no evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs suggestive of the fact that they had changed the nature of the land or had done any other overt act, hence, learned court below rightly came to conclusion that the plaintiffs also cannot be held to be in possession of Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin land and possession of such land, which is baron and uncultivated is followed by the title holder. 18. Apart from above, perusal of order passed by Land Reforms Officer shows that plaintiffs and proforma defendant have claimed themselves to in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant on payment of rent and have claimed that entry in favour of the respondent-defendant was wrong and illegal. The plaintiffs claimed before Land Reforms Officer that they were inducted in possession over the suit land, which stand is totally contrary to the stand taken in the instant suit, wherein they have claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit land on the strength of Jamabandi for the year 1931-32. Moreover, there is nothing in pleadings suggestive of the fact that they were inducted as non- occupancy tenant. Similarly, there is no mention, if any, with regard to their induction as a tenant on the suit land in the year 1926. Hence, this Court, after having carefully perused the pleadings as well as order passed by learned Revenue Authorities, sees substantial force in the arguments made by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, that there is complete variation in stand taken by the appellants-plaintiffs before trial Court below as well as Revenue Authorities and as such there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court. 19. After having carefully perused impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court as well as record of Court below, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, which is apparently based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. 19. After having carefully perused impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court as well as record of Court below, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, which is apparently based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Appellants-plaintiffs have not been able to prove their possession over the suit land, rather there is overwhelming evidence led on record by the respondent-defendant suggestive of the fact that name of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-appellants was wrongly recorded in the column of possession in the revenue record, which was rectified in accordance with law by the Revenue Authorities in the proceedings having been filed by the respondent-defendant. Moreover, at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that findings qua the ownership and possession of the respondent-defendant as returned by Land Reforms Officer have attained finality and as such same could not be looked into in the present proceedings by the Court below. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 20. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by first appellate Court, which is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence as well as law. Hence this appeal is dismissed. Accordingly judgment passed by learned first appellate Court is upheld and that of the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.