JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereunder, they decreed the plaintiffs' suit, for rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction besides in the alternative for rendition, of, a decree, for possession of the suit khasra numbers. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit before the learned trial Court with the averments that the suit land comprised in Khewat No.24, Khatauni No. 50, and, Khasra No.320 and 321, measuring 0-09-41 hectares situated at Chak Janog-Abal, Pargana Khalagad, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, is, owned and possessed by them. It was earlier under the tenancy of Motia, and, he was conferred the proprietary rights. His estate was inherited by the plaintiffs and Smt. Dhanko, respectively, as daughters and widow of Sees Ram son of Motia. The estate of Smt. Dhanko has also been inherited by the plaintiffs herein. It has been pleaded that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit land, but recently he tried to get his name entered in the column of possession. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Settlement, Theog declined to do so and his appeal was also dismissed by the settlement Collector, Shimla, and, the case has been remanded to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Theog for fresh decision. It has been pleaded that the defendant had been threatening to cause interference in the suit land. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has pleaded that in fact Devata Chikhdaishvar is the owner of the suit land, and, the defendant is a tenant under the “deity”. Earlier Sadh, father of the defendant and prior to him grand father of the defendant were tenant under the 'deity'. This land was earlier shown by Khasra No.37. Sadh used to render services to 'deity' and used to pay 1/4th of the land revenue of this land. The Kardar of Devata Chikhdaishvare took the services of “pooja” etc. from Sadh and Kapuru and gave this land for cultivation to them. So they were in settled possession of the suit land, during their life time. It is denied that the plaintiffs ever remained in possession of the suit land. The entries in the name of Motia are wrong. 4. from Sadh and Kapuru and gave this land for cultivation to them. So they were in settled possession of the suit land, during their life time. It is denied that the plaintiffs ever remained in possession of the suit land. The entries in the name of Motia are wrong. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of injunction? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiffs in alternative are entitled for the relief of possession? OPP. 3. Whether Devata Chikhdaishvar is owner of suit land and defendant Maurusee tenant under him, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether Sh. Motia was tenant of suit land, and, was conferred proprietary rights by compensation officer, vide order dated 31.8.1967, as alleged? OPP. 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court hence decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendant/appellant herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein, he assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 30.06.2006, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the property belonged to the Deity under the management of Kardar showing Shri Sadh and others the predecessor-in-interest of defendant-appellant to be the occupancy tenant, have not both the courts below acted in erroneous, illegal and perverse manner in relying upon the revenue entries, which were not proved to be lawfully substituted to hold that Shri Motia was non occupancy tenant, especially when there was no evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to show the lawful basis of substitution of the entries? 2. 2. Whether both the Courts below have misread the revenue entries, presumption to which was duly rebutted and on the basis of conflict in the earlier and lateral entries and on account of plaintiff having failed to prove the lawful substitution of the entries of Shri Motia as a non occupancy tenant, have not both the Courts below acted in erroneous and perverse manner in putting reliance on such entries which had no legal value? 3. Whether both the Courts below have ignored the principle of law that the mutation does not confer any title and Lower Appellate Court relying upon the judgment which had no applicability to hold that order of conferment of proprietary rights cannot be challenged after such a long period, has not the Lower Appellate Court acted in erroneous, illegal and perverse manner in ignoring that the order passed by Assistant Collector Second Grade was without jurisdiction and the copy of the order was not placed on record by the plaintiff? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 8. The material res controversia engaging the parties at contest, is, centered upon (a) the validity of the contested substitution, in the year 1966-67, in the apposite column, of, possession, of, the jamabandi apposite vis-a-vis, the suit land, of one Sadh, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, by one Motia, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs; (b) the validity of mutation bearing No. 220, mutation whereof stood hence attested, on, 31.8.1967, whereunder, the apt proprietary rights were, as reflected in Ex.P-5, stood, attested, vis-a-vis, the suit land, qua the afore Motia. 9. The afore contested substitution, as, stood further carried in the apt revenue records, does, prima facie, hence carry a rebutable presumption of truth. However, for the afore presumption of truth, assignable to the entries, occurring, in the revenue records, rather acquiring, an, enhanced aura of validity, thereupon, the revenue records were enjoined to make, a, clear display (i) qua the substitution of Motia, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, in place of one Sadh, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, being a sequel of valid orders being rendered hence by the competent Revenue Officer. However, the aforesaid orders remained unadduced into evidence. However, the aforesaid orders remained unadduced into evidence. Consequently, for want of existence on record, of, rendition, of, any valid order, rather by the competent Revenue Officer, whereafter, the apt substitution of Motia, in the revenue records, rather occurred, (a) thereupon, rather renders his substitution to hold no legal validity, rather hence the presumption of truth, ascribed to the afore substitution, and, carried aforesaid, in the revenue records, hence, getting eroded and dislodged. (b) Particularly, when all the jamabandis appertaining to the suit land, and, borne in Exts. D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5 and Ex. D-6, stood, prepared prior to the contested jamabandis borne in Ex.P-1 and P-2, and, they rather make a candid display qua the predecessor-in- interest of the defendant, hence being recorded, as, a tenant under the land owner. However, the effect of the afore purported inefficacies, of, the afore narrations, borne in the revenue records, is espoused by the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, to hence stand benumbed by (i) the attestation of mutation No.220, recorded on 31.8.1967, and, borne in Ex.P-5, whereunder, the apt proprietary rights were conferred, upon, one Motia, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. However, the aforesaid submission cannot gather any weight, (a) given, the simplicitor attestation, of, the afore mutation, whereunder, hence, proprietary rights, stood conferred upon one Motia, visibly appearing, to, stand recorded, in, a slip shod manner, and, also in its making, rather it relegating into, the, oblivion of insignificance, the, prior thereto entries, occurring in the revenue records, whereunder, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, was, recorded to be in possession, of, the suit khasra number. The afore non attribution of sanctity, to, the afore prior thereto apt entries existing in the revenue records, by, the Officer concerned, who attested mutation No. 220, whereunder, proprietary rights were conferred, upon, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, would acquire tenacity, (b) reiteratedly, upon, the Revenue Officer concerned, evidently bearing in mind, the factum qua any valid apt substitution, rather occurring, (c) thereupon, existence on record of the apt order, rendered by the Revenue Officer concerned, whereunder, the apt contested substitution occurred, rather was imperative, especially, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its making. However, re-emphasisingly, the afore purported valid order of substitution remained rather unadduced into evidence, and, therefrom, it is to be concluded, that, the mere attestation of mutation No.220 on 31.08.1967, hence wanting in legal vigour, and, nor per se on its making any inference being drawable qua the apt contested substitution, hence, acquiring, any, sanctified aura of validity. 10. During the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has, through casting an application, borne under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, application whereof, bears CMP No. 7045 of 2017, (i) hence strived to seek leave of this Court to place on record certain orders rendered by the Compensation Officer, (ii) orders whereof appear to stand rendered in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the attestation, of, the apt mutation, (iii) and, also has strived to seek leave of this Court, to adduce into evidence, the compensation amount, tendered by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, in pursuance to the orders borne in Annexures A-1 to A-4, Annexures, whereof, are, appended with the application at hand. His strivings hence, for, seeking the leave of this Court to place on record the afore documents, appears, to, hence sanctify, mutation No.220, and, also appears to, hence, validate the apt contested substitution. Even though, application bearing CMP No. 7045 of 2017, stands belatedly instituted before this Court, yet, the mere belated institution of the afore application, would not bar this Court to grant, the, apposite leave to the applicants/plaintiffs, (iv) conspicuously, upon, this Court being satisfied that, upon, the apt leave being granted to the applicants/plaintiffs, it, being facilitated to render clinching findings, upon, the afore material res controversia, and, hence, there adduction into evidence being just and essential, for, resting the apt controversy. Even though, the pronouncements, occurring in Annexures A-1 to A-4, do make portrayals, that an order being rendered by the Compensation Officer, for conferment of proprietary rights, upon, the predecessorin- interest of the plaintiffs, (v) yet therein occurs, no narration that the afore contested substitution, standing, therein either alluded to, or standing meted adjudication, (vi) whereas, the occurrence, of, the afore pronouncement therein, vis-a-vis, the afore facet, rather was an utmost dire necessity, for, making, a, firm conclusion, that, the afore annexures, hence, establishing the factum, that, the apt contested substitution hence was validly made, and, also the afore mutation, hence, standing validly attested, in, pursuance thereof. Contrarily, even though the afore Annexures, appear, to stand, rendered in discharge of official duty(ies), hence, acquire, a, rebuttable presumption of truth, (vii) yet with the afore apt echoings remaining uncommunicated therein, also, with an apt valid order, for hence sanctifying the apposite contested substitution, being enjoined to stand adduced earlier or appended with the application at hand, (viii) given appendings thereof being of critical importance, whereas all afore rather remaining unappended. Consequently, the rebuttable presumption, of, truth qua hence the afore being recorded, by a public servant, during discharge, of his official duties, rather stands hence rebutted. It appears that the afore annexures appended with the application at hand also alike the making of an inapt contested substitution, rather standing perfunctorily rendered, by the revenue officer concerned, without his ensuring, that, the apt contested substitutions, rather being evidently preceded, by rendition, of, an apt valid order. Consequently, the leave as prayed for, stands declined, and, in sequel, CMP No. 7045 hence stands dismissed. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court being not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned Courts below have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Substantial questions of law No.1 to 3, are answered in favour of the appellant/defendant, and, against the respondents/plaintiffs. 12. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed. In sequel, the plaintiff's suit is dismissed and the concurrently recorded judgments and decrees by both the learned Courts below are set aside. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. 12. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed. In sequel, the plaintiff's suit is dismissed and the concurrently recorded judgments and decrees by both the learned Courts below are set aside. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.