JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed by the aggrieved plaintiff, against, the, concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the learned courts below, where under, a, disaffirmative decree, stand, recorded vis-a-vis the plaintiff. The plaintiff being aggrieved there from, has, hence preferred the instant appeal, before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Dumna Ram, s/o Poshu was recorded as non occupancy tenant in the land comprised under old kh. kh. No. 29/70, khasra Nos. 1167, 1172, 1177, 1270, 1305, 1313, 1365, 1455, 1468, 1521, 1522, 1614, 1621, 1623, 1636, 1137, 1144, 1377, 1543, 1257, 1326, 1667 kita 22, measuring 646 bighas, situated at village Bakhrogi, H.B. No. 172 @ Mastgarh, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. In this land Sh. Dumna Ram as non occupancy tenant to the extent of ¼ share of the H.P., and, he was non occupancy tenant to the extent of ¾ share of owner Madho Prasad and others. 3. In the meantime, Sh. Dumna Ram has sold his ¼ share to Dhameshwar Dutt vide mutation No. 29 and later on said Dhameshwar Dutt further sold the same to Prakash Chand vide mutation No. 31. As such Sh. Prakash Chand, stepped into the shoes of Dumna Ram, and, became the joint owner in possession to the extent of ¼ share i.e. land bearing kita No. 29, kh. No. 72, khasra No. 1257, 1326 and 1667 kita 3 measuring 1-14-1 bighas while the remaining land in which Dumna Ram was non occupancy tenant to the extent of his share i.e. kita No. 29 kh. No. 7071, khasra Nos. 1167, 1172, 1177, 1270, 1305, 1313, 1365, 1455, 1468, 1521, 1522, 1614, 1621, 1623, 1636, 1137, 1144, 1377, 1543 kitas 19 measuring 4105 bighas remained in possession of Sh. Dumna. 4. That later on Prakash Chand defendant No.2 joint owner of the ¼ share out of the above land inducted defendant No.1 as non occupancy tenant under him in respect of the land comprising khasra No. 1257, 1326 and 1667, kitas 3 measuring 1-14-1 bighas. Later Sh. Dumna Ram acquired the proprietary rights qua ¾ share in which he was non occupancy tenant and while the proprietary rights qua the land of ¼ share of Prakash Chand (defendant No.2) were conferred upon defendant No.1. Hem Dutt vide mutation No. 180 on dated 16.5.1989. 5. Later Sh. Dumna Ram acquired the proprietary rights qua ¾ share in which he was non occupancy tenant and while the proprietary rights qua the land of ¼ share of Prakash Chand (defendant No.2) were conferred upon defendant No.1. Hem Dutt vide mutation No. 180 on dated 16.5.1989. 5. It is stated by the plaintiff that this mutation No. 180 has been wrongly attested by learned A.C. II Grade because defendant No.1 was non occupancy tenant in respect of ¼ share of Prakash Chand defendant No.2 and he was not a tenant with the ¾ share of Om Chand and others, of which Dumna Ram was the non occupancy tenant in possession. Therefore, the aforesaid mutation concerning the mention of ¾ share of Om Chand and others is wrong, illegal, incorrect and misunderstanding of the mutation officer of the said mutation to this extent is liable to be declared wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. 6. It is pertinent to mention that said Dumna Ram during his lifetime had bequeathed the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and after his death, the plaintiff had stepped into his shoes and became absolute owner of the suit land. It is further stated by the plaintiff that during private arrangements and division made beteen Dumna Ram and defendant No.1, the land mentioned in para No.3 in the plaint was allowed to be cultivated and possessed by the defendant, while the suit land was continued to be cultivated and possessed by Dumna Ram firstly as non occupancy tenant of ¾ share of Om Chand and others and later on as owner thereof after having become owner thereof by the operation of law. 7. Plaintiff prays that his possession over the suit land be confirmed as exclusive owner and mutation No. 180 and revenue entries to the contrary concerning the suit land be declared as wrong, illegal, incorrect, void and contrary to the factual position and defendant be restrained from interfering over the suit land. 8. On notice defendant No.1 and 2 appeared, and, have controverted the claim of the plaintiff and they have resisted his suit by filing separate written statements. Defendant No.1 Sh. 8. On notice defendant No.1 and 2 appeared, and, have controverted the claim of the plaintiff and they have resisted his suit by filing separate written statements. Defendant No.1 Sh. Hem Dutt have taken the preliminary objections that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, suit is barred by limitation, plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit and this court has no jurisdiction to decide the present suit. 9. On merit it is alleged by the defendant No.1 that Dumna Ram was in possession of ¼ share of the State of H.P. and proprietary rights were confirmed to him and rest of the land of ¾ share was in his possession. It is alleged by the defendant No.1 that he was non occupancy tenant under Dumna Ram and was so inducted by Dumna Ram in the month of September, 1966 and by 1971-72 the said entry had appeared in the revenue record also as non occupancy tenant with respect to the land in dispute that is measuring 1-14-1 bighas. Defendant N.2 was neither owner of the disputed land nor is in possession of the same because the land which has coming in the ownership and possession of the Dumna Ram was under the possession of Hem Dutt defendant No.1 and after the passage of time under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 be became the exclusive owner of the land and defendant No.2 was now here in the picture at that time and as such mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant No.1 is legal and as per law. It is alleged by the defendant No.1 that he is in physical possession of the land bearing khatta No. 29/72, khasra No. 1257, 1326 and 1667 kittas 3 measuring 1-14-1 bighas. As such the present suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. 10. On the other hand defendant No.2 has taken the preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, suit is barred by limitation. On merit it is stated by the defendant No.2 that co-owner cannot be tenant and no tenancy can be created by co-owner and the conferment of proprietary rights of ¾ shares is wrong, illegal, null and void and the entries to this effect are also wrong and not admitted. 11. On merit it is stated by the defendant No.2 that co-owner cannot be tenant and no tenancy can be created by co-owner and the conferment of proprietary rights of ¾ shares is wrong, illegal, null and void and the entries to this effect are also wrong and not admitted. 11. It is admitted by the defendant No.2 that he has purchased ¼ share and he is owner in possession of the suit land. He further stated that Dumna Ram was not in exclusive possession of the remaining land as non occupancy tenant in which he has ¾ share, but is also in the possession of defendant No.2. He further stated that conferment of proprietary rights in favour of defendant No.1 is wrong and denied. Land reform officer has not adopted the judicial procedure and the mutation is wrong, illegal and void ab initio and is not admitted to be correct, which has been sanctioned behind the back of the defendant No.2 and the mutation sanctioned if any is also contrary to the facts and entries pertaining to the land is illegal and void ab initio and is liable to be set aside. It is prayed by the defendant No.2 that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and his suit be dismissed with costs. 12. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues interse the parties at contest: 1. Whether the plaintiff is liable to be declared as exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether mutation No. 180 and revenue entries in favour of defendants are liable to be corrected as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD2. 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD2. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit? OPD1. 7. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action, nor any right to sue the defendant? OPD1. 8. Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred udner the H.P. Tenancy and Land reforms Act? OPD1. 9. Relief. 13. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence dismissed the plaintiff’’s suit. OPD1. 7. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action, nor any right to sue the defendant? OPD1. 8. Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred udner the H.P. Tenancy and Land reforms Act? OPD1. 9. Relief. 13. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence dismissed the plaintiff’’s suit. In an appeal, preferred there from, by the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court also affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 14. Now the plaintiff has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein, he, assails the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 26.5.2006, this Court, admitted the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions, of, law: (i) Whether the two Courts below have misconstrued the entries in the revenue papers, while dismissing the suit? Substantial question of law No. 1 . 15. One Dumna held, as, owner ¼ share in the suit khasra numbers, and, the aforesaid share held by afore Dumna, stood alienated by him, qua, one Dhameshwar Dutt, in, respect whereof mutation No. 29 stood attested, (a) and, the latter thereafter alienated, it, to defendant No.2, and, in respect thereof mutation No. 31, stood, in sequel thereto, hence attested, (b) and, hence defendant No.2 rather became owner to the extent of ¼ share, in, the suit land. 16. The emerging dispute, is, centered upon the validity, of, attestation, of, mutation borne in Ext. PB, mutation whereof stood attested on 16.5.1989, (a) where under, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, qua one Prakash Chand hence proprietary rights stood conferred, vis-a-vis, khata khatauni No. 39, min 63, khasra No. 1257 1326 and 1667, kita 3, area 1-14-1 bighas, (b) and, the apt conferment of proprietary rights, are, disclosed therein, to, appertain, vis-a-vis, the land owned by one Prakash Chand, Chaharam, Om Chand and Madho Prasad. In consonance therewith, hence entries were made in the column of ownership, and, in the column of possession thereof, of, the apt jamabandi (c) Ext. In consonance therewith, hence entries were made in the column of ownership, and, in the column of possession thereof, of, the apt jamabandi (c) Ext. PB, the order, hence, conferring proprietary rights, upon, Prakash Chand, would stand fastened with an aura, of, validity, and, would also garner legal clout, only, when a perusal thereof, makes displays qua, its, rendition, being anviled, upon, apt reflections borne, in, the prior thereto jamabandis, (c) the revenue officer concerned, while attesting, the, order also bearing in mind, (i) the names of land owners concerned, (ii) their shares thereon, the names of gair murusis, and, their shares in the suit khasra numbers, as, find reflection therein. 17. For making the aforesaid gaugings, an allusion, vis-a-vis, the, jamabandi borne in Ext.PA, appertaining to the year 1965-66, is, of utmost importance, (a) wherein the apt names, of, the land owners are borne, and, also therein, (b) the names of Dumna, and, of one Prakash Chand hence stand reflected, as owners in possession, to, the extent of ¼ shares, in, khatoni No. 35, (c), and, in the column of possession, the name of Dumna, stands reflected, as a gair murusi, under the apt land owners, as, reflected in the prior thereto column, of, ownership. The afore referred alienations apparently occurred, vis-a-vis, ¼ share, in, the suit khasra numbers, initially, from Dumna to Dhameshwar, and, subsequently from Dhameshwar, to Prakash Chand, (d) and, in respect thereof, mutation No. 29, and, mutation No.31, stood respectively attested. The afore mutation Nos. 29 and 31, as stood respectively attested, in sequel, to, alienations of ¼ share, in, the suit khasra numbers, when remain unchallenged, thereupon they acquire an aura of validity. The afore mutation Nos. 29 and 31, as stood respectively attested, in sequel, to, alienations of ¼ share, in, the suit khasra numbers, when remain unchallenged, thereupon they acquire an aura of validity. The effect thereof, is, qua Prakash Chand, hence, acquiring only ¼th share in the suit khasra numbers, (e) and, when one Dumna, is, reflected in the column of possession of, the, jamabandi, appertaining to the suit land, relating to the year 1965-66, to be a gair murusi, under the land owners, as, reflected in the prior thereto column of ownership, (f), and, there from, an inference is garnerable qua Prakash Chand, not being a recorded gair murusi, under, the land owners, as, mentioned in the prior thereto column of ownership, (g) rather one Dumna, being the solitary gair murusi, under, the apt land owners, excepting, the afore Prakash Chand, who, rather, had, in the afore manner acquired 1/4th share in the suit khasra numbers, (h) likewise in, the, jamabandi prior thereto, and, appertaining to the year 1971-72, one Prakash Chand is reflected, to hold apt proprietary rights, upto, ¼ share, in the joint suit khasra numbers, yet, when, the, apt mutation, borne in Ext. PB, was, recorded, rather therein one afore Prakash Chand, hence stood bestowed proprietary rights, vis-a-vis, the area mentioned therein (iii) and, also a reflection is borne qua his hence holding exclusive proprietary rights, under, the land owners mentioned therein. Visibly the aforesaid orders, is, perse fallacious, (i) given in the afore referred jamabandies, his, being reflected, as owner to the extent of ¼ share, in, the suit khasra numbers, ownership whereof, he acquired under afore referred mutation (a) mutation whereof rather stood attested in pursuance, to, a sale made in his favour by Dumna, and, when, for, reasons assigned, it, stands hereinabove concluded, qua, the afore hence mutations rather holding validity, thereupon, the, order borne in Ext. PB, is, perse rendered hence flawed, (c) contrarily the existence, of, a reflection, in, the order, attesting mutation No. 180, qua, the afore Prakash Chand rather acquiring proprietary rights under the land owners mentioned therein, (d) acquisition, of, proprietary rights thereunder, rather, obviously stands sparked from, it, being in gross disconcurrence, and, in incompatibility, with, the afore referred jamabahdi prepared prior, to, the recording, of, mutation No. 180, (d) especially when Dumna rather, holds, in the afore jamabandi, a, status of a gair murusi, under the land owners concerned, and, with a presumption of truth standing attached therewith, and, presumption whereof rather remaining unrebutted, and, hence there under, the, apt right being solitary vested, in, one Dumna, (e) thereupon it was incumbent, upon, the revenue officer concerned, who, attested the apt mutation, on 16.5.1989, to rebear in mind all the apt afore reflections borne therein, than, to confer there under, proprietary rights, upon, Prakash Chand, under the owners concerned, as reflected therein, (f) reteriatedly, when the right to secure conferment, of, apt proprietary rights, vis-a-vis, the land owners mentioned therein, rather stood solitary vested, in, one Dumna, thereupon the order borne in Ext. PB, is, vitiated. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 18. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned first appellate Court, has not appraised the entire evidence on record, in, a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart there from, the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, suffer, from a gross perversity or absurdity of misappreciation, and, non appreciation of evidence on record. 19. Consequently, there is merit in the instant appeal and it is allowed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgments, are, set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the above extent. However right, if any, in the suit land, of, one Hem Dutt shall remain unaffected. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs.