JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 14th August, 2003, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 27-D/2001, titled as Puran Chand and others Vs. Desh Raj and others, vide which the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal, filed by the present respondents by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001, passed by the Court of Sub Judge-I, Dharamshala, in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1996, titled as Puran Chand and others Vs. Desh Raj and others, whereby the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the present respondents. 2. This appeal was admitted on 31st October, 2003 on the following substantial questions of law :- (a) Whether the first appellate Court mis-read and misconstrued the documentary evidence while applying instruction No. 9.8 of H.P. Land Record Manual ? (b) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs estopped from challenging the revenue entries after having accepted the demarcation made on the basis of those entries ? 3. Brief facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration that they were in lawful possession of the suit property comprised in Khasra No. 730 measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas and that revenue entries of Khasra No. 597 in jamabandi for the year 1991-92, reflecting the defendants as co-owners in possession in the entire suit land were illegal, wrong, null and void and were liable to be corrected, with consequential relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land as also relief of mandatory injunction, directing the respondents to get the revenue entries corrected. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was in their possession upon which residential houses as also courtyard was existing. Further, as per the plaintiffs, they were in lawful possession of the suit land and property since the time of their forefathers and residential house was owned by them. Defendants started interfering over the suit land and when plaintiffs made inquiry in this regard, they came to know that defendants No. 1 to 3 had purchased part of the suit land comprised in khasra No. 597 from defendant No. 4. Defendants started interfering over the suit land and when plaintiffs made inquiry in this regard, they came to know that defendants No. 1 to 3 had purchased part of the suit land comprised in khasra No. 597 from defendant No. 4. Further, as per the plaintiffs, when they obtained revenue records, they came to know that part of the suit land comprised in khata No. 110 min, khatauni No. 159 min and Khasra No. 597, stood wrongly recorded in the name and possession of original owner Pratap Chand, i.e. defendant No. 4. According to the plaintiffs, the entire suit land was in possession of the plaintiffs and the revenue record, reflecting khasra No. 597 to be in possession of defendant No. 4, was wrong. Further, as per the plaintiffs, they had never been dispossessed from the said khasra number and defendant No. 4, in collusion with settlement staff, had got revenue entries wrongly changed qua khasra No. 597 in his favour. It was further mentioned in the plaint that on 20.11.1995, defendants tried to interfere over the suit land, claiming that defendants No. 1 to 3 were recorded in possession of the same. It was further mentioned in the plaint that defendants were threatening to change nature of the suit land by raising construction on the same. It was in this background that the suit was filed praying for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The claim of the plaintiffs was not admitted by the defendants. In their written statement, they took the stand that it was incorrect that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. They also denied that plaintiffs were having any residential house or courtyard over the suit land. According to the defendants, plaintiffs were not possessing any part of the suit land and it were defendants No. 1 to 3 who are in peaceful possession of the suit land as owners in possession, after execution of the sale deed by defendant No. 4 in their favour qua the suit property sold, and beyond that, it was defendant No. 4 who was in possession of the remaining land. It was also mentioned in the written statement that defendants No. 1 to 3 were bonafide purchasers, who were in peaceful possession of the suit land, purchased from defendant No. 4. 5. It was also mentioned in the written statement that defendants No. 1 to 3 were bonafide purchasers, who were in peaceful possession of the suit land, purchased from defendant No. 4. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 2nd May, 1997 :- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit land/property ? OPP 2. Whether the revenue entry of khasra No. 597, showing the defendants in possession of entire suit land is illegal, wrong and null and void ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 9. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? OPD 10. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 11. Relief. 6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the issues framed by the learned trial Court were answered in the following terms :- Issue No. 1 No Issue No. 2 No Issue No. 3 No Issue No. 4 Yes Issue No. 5 Yes Issue No. 6 Not pressed Issue No. 7 Yes Issue No. 8 No Issue No. 9 Not pressed Issue No. 10 No Relief Suit dismissed as per operative part of the judgment. 7. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that evidence led by the parties demonstrated that plaintiffs were in possession of khasra No. 598 only and as far as entries qua khasra No. 597 were concerned, they were correct and binding upon the plaintiffs and the land comprised in khasra No. 597 was sold to defendants No. 1 to 3 by defendant No. 4 and it were defendants No. 1 to 3 who were in possession of the same. 8. However, in appeal, findings so returned by the learned trial Court , were reversed. Learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 8. However, in appeal, findings so returned by the learned trial Court , were reversed. Learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. It held that while changing the revenue entries in the name of respondent No. 4 in the year 1971-72, neither the Patwari nor the settlement staff complied with the statutory instruction i.e. instruction 9.8, contained in H.P. Land Records Manual (Revised Edition), 1992 under Chapter VI, Maintenance and Updation of Land Records. On this basis, it was held by the learned appellate Court that as the change in the revenue entries was made in violation of the said instructions, the change was thus without any valid order and had no legal validity and, therefore, subsequent entries in the jamabandi for the year 1991-92, i.e. Ex. DW-4/B, on the basis of entries made in the missal haquiat, were to be ignored as entries in the jamabandi for the year 1961-62 (Ex. DM) were not later on changed as per law in H.P. Land Records Manual instruction. 9. Learned appellate Court further held that defendants had not pleaded in their written statement as to how the entries in the revenue record stood changed and learned trial Court had gravely erred in appreciation of the revenue entries. Learned appellate Court thus set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that plaintiffs were in lawful possession of khasra No. 730 min (old), new khasra No. 597, measuring 2 kanals as per jamabandi for the year 1961- 62,situated in Mohal Padhar, Mauza Jadrangal, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the revenue entries showing defendants in possession of Khasra No. 597 as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92 were wrong, null and void and liable to be corrected. The learned appellate Court also restrained defendants from interfering over the suit land in any manner. 10. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this appeal. The substantial questions of law, on which this appeal had been admitted, already stand enumerated hereinabove. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and decrees passed by both the Courts below as also the records of the case. 12. Learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit, held that in the jamabandi for the year 1961-62, (Ex. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and decrees passed by both the Courts below as also the records of the case. 12. Learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit, held that in the jamabandi for the year 1961-62, (Ex. DM), plaintiffs were shown in possession of the entire land, but then there was no remarks as to how these entries appeared in the jamabandi. It further held that in Ex. DL, which was jamabandi for the year 1959-60, only 10 marlas of land was shown to be in possession of the plaintiffs in the shape of Gair Mumkin Abadi and the column of rent was blank because no rent was paid. Learned trial Court also held that said entries appeared to be correct because consolidation took place on the spot and plaintiffs were recorded as owners on the part of khasra No. 169 on the Abadi and the remaining land was shown in possession of defendant No. 4. Learned trial Court further held that in Ex. DM, i.e. jamabandi for the year 1961-62, plaintiffs were recorded in possession of whole of the land of khasra No. 720 (old 669) in which rent column was blank. It further held that it was admitted fact that khasra Nos. 571 and 597 were mortgaged by defendant No. 4 with one Brij Lal and Shri Kant and mutation No. 695 was also sanctioned which was clear from Ex. DW-4/D, and said land stood redeemed by Pratap Chand (defendant No.4) from Shri Kant on 8.09.1995 vide mutation No. 650. It further held that it was an admitted fact that in the year 1953-54, it was Gulaba, who was entered in revenue record as tenant over the disputed land. Gulaba was brother of Saran Dass,who was entered in the revenue record, for the first time, in the year 1953-54 as per Ex. P-10. Learned trial Court held that there was no order on record as to how the name of Gulaba got deleted from the revenue record and how the name of Saran Dass was entered. It further held that there was no mutation on record to the effect that after the death of Gulaba, entries had gone in favour of a male as per provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act. It further held that there was no mutation on record to the effect that after the death of Gulaba, entries had gone in favour of a male as per provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Learned trial Court also held that plaintiffs had nowhere mentioned that their predecessor-ininterest was ever a tenant on the suit land as their simple case was that they were in possession of the suit land and had constructed a house over the same. It also observed that it was admitted fact that defendant No.4 sold the land to defendants No. 1 to 3 in the year 1995 vide sale deed Ex. DW-3/A, which stood admitted by the plaintiffs. It also held that plaintiffs had admitted that suit land was in possession of Shri Kant and Brij Lal, mortgagee and defendant No. 4 had redeemed the same and taken possession thereof which also demonstrated that it was not plaintiffs, who were in possession of khasra No. 597. Thereafter it held that as far as khasra No. 598 was concerned, the same was in possession of the plaintiff, upon which it had constructed their house. 13. Now these findings returned by the learned trial Court have been reversed by the learned appellate Court primarily by holding that the change which was made in the revenue entries in the year 1971-72 was without any legal validity as the same was done in violation of instruction9.8, as contained in H.P. Land Records Manual (Revised Edition), 1992. 14. I have gone through the instructions, which have been referred to and relied upon by the learned appellate Court while reversing the judgment of learned trial Court. For ready reference, the same are being quoted hereinbelow :- " 9.8 The crops will be entered in the khasra girdawari as the inspectionproceeds in the column provided for the purpose. The change in rights, rents and possession will be noted in the appropriate column in pencil and where the boundaries of area of a field have changed in such a manner as to require a correction of the field map, the Patwari will make a rough measurement sufficient for the crop. The change in rights, rents and possession will be noted in the appropriate column in pencil and where the boundaries of area of a field have changed in such a manner as to require a correction of the field map, the Patwari will make a rough measurement sufficient for the crop. All changes in rights, rents and possession shall be recorded by the Patwari in pencil and by putting a cross in pencil in columns 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 of khasra girdawari in accordance with Government instruction issued vide letter No. 10-5/73-II, dated 4.9.1980. As per these instructions, the Patwari will give information of such changes to the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar as the case may be. Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar will inquire and will give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. The inquiry should be completed within three months and the entries will be made in khasra girdawari according to the orders passed by the revenue officer after entering in his diary." 15. A perusal of these instructions demonstrate that it stands mentioned therein that changes in rights, rent and possession shall be recorded by the Patwari, inter alia, in accordance with Government instructions, issued vide letter No. 10-5/73-II, dated 4th September, 1980. It is, but common sense that because there is a reference of letter, dated 4th September, 1980 in these instructions, therefore, the instructions must have been issued after 4th September, 1980. That being so, it is not understood as to how learned appellate Court has held changes effected in the revenue record for the year 1971-72 to be without any legal validity on the ground that they were not done by complying with the above statutory instructions without appreciating that said statutory instructions were not in vogue in the year 1971-72, when the changes were effected in the revenue record. This per se demonstrates that there is perversity in the findings returned by the learned appellate Court and the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, therefore, is liable to be set aside on this count alone. 16. Subsequent findings returned by the learned appellate Court are also based on this primary finding returned by it which I have already held is a perverse finding. 16. Subsequent findings returned by the learned appellate Court are also based on this primary finding returned by it which I have already held is a perverse finding. On the other hand, I find that the findings returned by the learned trial Court were duly borne out from the record of the case and the issues were decided by the learned trial Court after correctly appreciating evidence on record. 17. Incidentally, as per the averments made in the plaint, the contention of the plaintiffs is that they are in possession of the suit land and revenue entries to the contrary are wrong and incorrect and liable to be corrected. However, Puran Singh while deposing in Court as PW-1 in his cross examination, has admitted the fact that part of the land, which was earlier mortgaged by defendant No. 4, after being redeemed, was not only sold to defendants No. 1 to 3, but possession thereof was also given by defendant No. 4 to the said defendants. 18. In my considered view, this clinches the factum of defendants No. 1 to 3 being in possession of khasra No. 597 and not the plaintiffs. This also finds mentioned in the judgment, so passed by the learned trial Court. 19. From the above, it is evident that the learned first appellate Court has completely mis-read and mis-construed the evidence on record by wrongly applying instruction 9.8 of the H.P. Land Records Manual. 20. Further, records demonstrate that demarcation carried out was duly accepted by the plaintiffs. Now incidentally, the demarcation was carried out on the basis of revenue entries, which stood assailed by the plaintiffs in the civil suit. In my considered view, once the demarcation was accepted by the plaintiffs, then the revenue entries on the basis of which said demarcation was carried out, could not have been assailed by the plaintiffs on the principles of estoppel. This is for the reason that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to say that though demarcation was acceptable to them, but the revenue entries, on the basis of which demarcation was done, was not acceptable and they had right to challenge the same. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 21. This is for the reason that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to say that though demarcation was acceptable to them, but the revenue entries, on the basis of which demarcation was done, was not acceptable and they had right to challenge the same. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 21. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed and judgment and decree dated 14th August, 2003, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshalain in Civil Appeal No. 27-D/2001, titled as Puran Chand and others Vs. Desh Raj and others, is set aside and the the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001, passed by the Court of Sub Judge-I, Dharamshala, in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1996, titled as Puran Chand and others Vs. Desh Raj and others is upheld. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Costs easy.