JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 137/2001, whereby on modification of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs (respondents herein) have been declared in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenants at will instead of co-owners thereof. 2. The subject matter of dispute in the present lis is land measuring 5 Kanal 12 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 9/3, Musteel No. 7, Khewat No.4 min, Khatauni No.6 min, situated in village Takhatpur, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. 3. It was claimed that Sh. Babu Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 7 (a) to 7 (f) herein, was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenant at will under Smt. Janaki Devi (defendant No.2 in the suit). He died on 20.9.1995 and on his death, the tenancy rights were inherited by the respondents-plaintiffs being his legal heirs. Mutation No. 191 sanctioned and attested in their names and they are coming in possession of the suit land including Khasra Nos. 388 and 391. During the settlement operation, old Khasra No. 9/3 of Musteel No. 7, was bifurcated into several numbers which includes two disputed Khasra Nos. 388 and 391. The defendant-appellant and deceased Smt. Janaki Devi, (respondent No.7 herein), in connivance with the settlement staff got the entries of the suit land changed in the name of deceased defendant No.2 Smt. Janaki Devi in respect to Khasra Nos. 288 and 391 as ‘Kash Ba Kabja Sawayam’. The change was effected in the revenue record at the back of the plaintiffs and without any notice. The appellant-defendant No.1 in connivance with deceased defendant No.2, filed Civil Suit No. 31/93. The same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.1993, Ext. P-1, by leaned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. II, Una and the defendant No.1 was declared as owner in possession of the land in dispute bearing Khasra No 388, 391,372 to 375 measuring 0-17-54 hects. 4. Consequent upon the judgment and decree Ext. The same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.1993, Ext. P-1, by leaned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. II, Una and the defendant No.1 was declared as owner in possession of the land in dispute bearing Khasra No 388, 391,372 to 375 measuring 0-17-54 hects. 4. Consequent upon the judgment and decree Ext. P-1, passed in favour of appellant-defendant No.1, it has been given due effect in the revenue record, however, the mutation was attested and sanctioned in his favour only qua the suit land bearing Khasra No. 388 and 391 measuring 0-02-36 hect., as is apparent from the note in the jamabandi for the year 1986-87, Ext. P-5. The plaintiffs on coming to know about the suit filed by the appellant-defendant in collusion with defendant No.2 and the decree obtained, have challenged the same in the present lis. They have sought the decree Ext. P-1, to be declared as illegal, null and void being collusive and obtained fraudulently in connivance with deceased defendant No.2. Mutation No. 191 attested and sanctioned in the name of appellant-defendant No.1 with respect to the suit land bearing Khasra No. 134 dated 17.5.1993, has also been sought to be declared as illegal, null and void. 5. The defendants, however, have resisted and contested the claim of the plaintiff as laid in the suit. The appellant-defendant No.1 has come forward with the version that the suit was rightly filed and decreed in his favour in accordance with law as per his possession on the spot. The mutation was also rightly sanctioned and attested in his name. The deceased defendant No.2 had averred that defendant No.1 was having his oven of brick-kiln over the suit land and as such, he was in possession thereof in the capacity of tenant at will. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge (I) Una dated 2.4.1994, has been obtained by fraud, mis-representation and is collusive decree and is liable to be set aside as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff as tenants-at-will and the entries in the revenue record are incorrect and liable to be set aside? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff as tenants-at-will and the entries in the revenue record are incorrect and liable to be set aside? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD. 7. Relief. 7. In evidence, Sh. Jeet Singh, plaintiff No.1, has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and examined Mehba Singh as PW-2, to substantiate the plaintiff’s case that it is they who are in possession of the suit land. Reliance was also placed on the judgment and decree Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2, passed by learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Court No.II, Una in the suit filed by appellant-defendant No.1. Jamabandis for the year 1985-86, Ext. P-3 & Ext. P-4 to Ext. P-7, Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid Sani for the year 1986-87, Ext. P-8, Jamabandies for year 1993-94 Ext, P- 9 and Ext. P-10, Missal Haquiat Bandobsat Sani Ext. P-11, Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Ext. P-12 and for the year 1965- 66 Ext. P-13. 8. Appellant-defendant No.1 Sohan Singh on the other hand has appeared as DW-1 and examined Shri Desh Raj as DW-2. 9. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties in both sides while deciding Issues No. 1 to 3 in affirmative has concluded that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenants at will, hence acquired title therein and the judgment and decree Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2, being obtained by practicing fraud, misrepresentation and being collusive, has been declared as illegal, null and void. The remaining issues No. 4 to 6 were answered against the defendants. Resultantly, the suit was decreed and the plaintiffs are declared owners in possession of the suit land. 10. In appeal, learned lower Appellate Court has modified the impugned judgment and decree, to the extent that instead of owner in possession of the suit land, the plaintiffs are in possession thereof in the capacity of tenant at will in possession. 11. The plaintiffs have not assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned lower Appellate Court. 10. In appeal, learned lower Appellate Court has modified the impugned judgment and decree, to the extent that instead of owner in possession of the suit land, the plaintiffs are in possession thereof in the capacity of tenant at will in possession. 11. The plaintiffs have not assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned lower Appellate Court. It is however, defendant No.1 Sohan Singh who is in second appeal before this Court as according to him, the pleadings of the parties and evidence available on record, have not been appreciated in its right perspective. The suit, according to him, was filed within the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC, however, this aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration. The evidence as has come on record by way of the entries in the jamabandi, is also stated to be ignored. The entries that brickkiln, was in existence over the land in dispute, have also not been taken into consideration. The impugned judgment and decree, passed by both the courts below, as such are sought to be set aside. 12. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether plaint as filed is lacking in sufficiently identifying the property, thus, is hit by provisions of order 7 Rule 3 CPC, same having been misread and misappreciated by the courts below, vitiated he impugned judgments and decrees? 2. Whether provisions of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act and Article 59 of the Limitation Act having wrongly been applied by the courts below, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decree? 3. Whether presumption as attached to the revenue record specifically Ext. P-12, Ext. P- 9, Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-5, having not been rebutted by plaintiffs, mis-appreciation of the same by both the courts below vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees? 13. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing appellant-defendant No.1, while taking this Court to the evidence available on record, has pointed out that the suit land was in possession of defendant No.1. He was tenant at will under the owner deceased defendant No.1 Smt. Janaki Devi, on payment of rent to her. According to Mr. 13. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing appellant-defendant No.1, while taking this Court to the evidence available on record, has pointed out that the suit land was in possession of defendant No.1. He was tenant at will under the owner deceased defendant No.1 Smt. Janaki Devi, on payment of rent to her. According to Mr. Sharma, when as per evidence there exit entries with respect to the suit land qua disputed khasra numbers of brick-kiln and Tappris, being not agricultural land, cannot be said to be in possession of the plaintiff in the capacity of tenants at will. It has, therefore, been urged that both courts below have failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the evidence available on record and thereby committed irregularity and illegality by decreeing the suit. 14. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate and Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 5, have repelled the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-defendant No.1, as according to them, as per the entries in the revenue record, the suit land is agricultural and the entries to the contrary, are the result of misrepresentation and the judgment and decree Ext. P-2 & P-2, collusive and obtained by the appellants-defendants, at the back of the respondents-plaintiffs. The evidence available on record according to learned counsel is sufficient to establish the identity of the suit land. The evidence available on record is also stated to be appreciated in its right perspective by both courts below. The appeal, as such, has been sought to be dismissed. 15. Now coming to the substantial question of law at Serial No. 1 & 2 hereinabove, the same are legal in nature. The same can be very appropriately answered in view of the law laid down by the learned Apex Court in Santosh vs. Jagat Ram and another in (2010)3 Supreme Court Cases 251. The relevant abstract of this judgment reads as below :- “20. The trial court also inferred correctly from the fact that a caveat was filed in the year 1985 itself and the appellant was again paraded to make a statement that she did not intend to challenge the decree. The relevant abstract of this judgment reads as below :- “20. The trial court also inferred correctly from the fact that a caveat was filed in the year 1985 itself and the appellant was again paraded to make a statement that she did not intend to challenge the decree. As regards the question of limitation, the trial court noted that the cause of action arose when the respondents started interfering with ownership and possession of the appellant-plaintiff over the suit land about two and a half months before filing of the second suit and started asserting about there having a decree in their favour in respect of the suit land.” “25. Very unfortunately, all this has escaped the notice of the High Court, who passed a very casual judgment without being bothered about these glaring facts. We are of the firm opinion that the whole Suit No. 253 of 1985, decree passed thereupon on 26.3.1985 and the subsequent caveat proceedings were nothing but a systematic fraud. There cannot be a better example of a fraudulent decree. We are anguished to see the attitude of the Court, who passed the decree on the basis of a plaint and a written statement, which were filed on the same day. We are also surprised at the observations made by the appellate court that such circumstance could not, by itself, prove the fraudulent nature of the decree.” “26. A fraud puts an end to everything. It is a settled position in law that such a decree is nothing, but a nullity. It has come in the evidence that when the respondents herein started disturbing the possession of the appellant and also started bragging about a decree having been obtained by them, the appellant chose to file a suit. In that view, her suit filed in 1990 would be absolutely within time. The casual observation made by the High Court that her suit would be barred by limitation, is also wholly incorrect.” 16. The judgment and decree Ext. P-1 & P-2, on the face of it, is collusive being obtained by appellant-defendant No.1 in connivance with Smt. Janaki Devi, owner of the suit land. Nothing suggesting that appellant-defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenant at will has come on record. The judgment and decree Ext. P-1 & P-2, on the face of it, is collusive being obtained by appellant-defendant No.1 in connivance with Smt. Janaki Devi, owner of the suit land. Nothing suggesting that appellant-defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenant at will has come on record. The entries in his name qua suit land came to be recorded in the revenue record for the first time and consequently Mutation No.134 attested and sanctioned in his favour on 17.5.1993, immediately after the judgment and decree Annexures-P-1 and P-2, obtained by him. It is thereafter in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94, he came to be recorded owner in possession of the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 388 and 391. The findings in the judgment Ext. P-1 that appellant-defendant No.1, Sohan Singh was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenant at will and acquired proprietary rights, are not supported by any evidence available on record. As a matter of fact, he connived with the owner Smt. Janaki Devi, has himself stated that he paid money to her and with malafide intention to grab the suit land had filed the present suit for declaration that he being owner in the capacity of tenant at will has acquired proprietary rights under the H.P. Land Reforms Act and hence, owner in possession thereof. Both the courts below as such have rightly declared the judgment and decree Ext. P-1 & P-2, as illegal, null and void. The suit property is sufficiently identified on the record with the help of the documentary evidence. There is no question of the plaint being hit by the provision contained under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC. Similarly, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs after one month of having come to know about the the judgment and decree Ext. P- 1 & P-2 passed and appellant-defendant No.1 started causing interference in the suit land, coupled with the factum of the judgment and decree Ext. P-1 & P-2, having been declared nullity, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Santosh’s case supra, neither violation of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is established, nor the suit is hit by the provisions contained under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. 17. Now coming to substantial question of law at serial No.3. 17. Now coming to substantial question of law at serial No.3. The oldest entries qua the suit land having come on record in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66, Ext. P-13, are available on record. The old Khasra Number of the suit land was 9/3, measuring 5-12 Kanal, while the same has been shown in the ownership of deceased defendant No.2 Smt. Janaki Devi. It is Babu Ram, son of Ganga Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, who was recorded in possession thereof in the capacity of Gair Marusi Tenant. These entries continued upto 1985-86 as is apparent from the perusal of the jamabandis Ext. P-3 & P-4. The change in the revenue entries qua the suit land for the first time came in the jamabandi for the year 1986-87, Ext. P-6. As a matter of fact, the old Khasra No. 9/3 was bifurcated into Khasra Nos. 387, 389, 390, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396 and 409. In Ext. P-6 also, it is Babu Ram son of Ganga Singh, the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiff has been shown in possession of the suit land in the capacity of Gair Marusi Tenant. It is thus seen that the land in old Khasra No. 9/3 upto the year 1986-87 remained in one chunk and out of it, Khasra No. 388 and 391, now the land in dispute in the present case, was bifurcated for the first time as per entries in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Ext. P-9. This bifurcation has taken place on the basis of the mutation No.134 attested in the name of appellant-defendant No.1 after the the judgment and decree Ext. P-1 & P-2 was obtained. This land was cultivable and also partly having abadi. The entries that brick-kiln and Taparis were in existence over the land in dispute, were reflected for the first time in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Ext. P-9 and the same have been shown to be in the ownership and possession of appellant-defendant No.1. Since, the very basis of these entries, i.e., the judgment and decree Ext. P-1 & P-2 and mutation No. 134, have been declared as illegal, null and void, therefore, even if, brick-kiln or Tapari is in existence, the appellant-defendant No.1 is not in possession thereof. Since, the very basis of these entries, i.e., the judgment and decree Ext. P-1 & P-2 and mutation No. 134, have been declared as illegal, null and void, therefore, even if, brick-kiln or Tapari is in existence, the appellant-defendant No.1 is not in possession thereof. The overwhelming evidence as is come on record by way of old revenue record rather lead to the only conclusion that it is the plaintiff who throughout remained in possession thereof in the capacity of Gair Marusi tenant and as such, they have rightly been declared in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenants at will. Since Smt. Janaki Devi (defendant No.2), the owner, has expired during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore, they have sought remedy available to them in accordance with law and have claimed ownership qua the suit land. Substantial question of law at serial No.3, therefore, does not arise in the present appeal at all. 18. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove, no question of law much less substantial question of law, as formulated, arises for determination in this appeal. The impugned judgment and decree rather being legally and factually sustainable, call for no interference by this Court. 19. In view of above, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court is affirmed. There is, however, no order as to costs.