JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction besides for rendition of a decree, for declaration, stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiffs, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, with assertions that the land comprised in Khewat No.58, Khatauni No.108, Khasra No.685, 686, measuring 0-05-56 hects, situated in mohal Thear, Mouza Khaniara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. is owned and possessed by them and mutation No.316, attested on 9.6.1999 regarding the suit land in favour of the defendant is illegal, null and void and the plaintiffs are not bound by the same and in the alternative the plaintiffs have sought a decree for possession, if the plaintiff are not found to be in possession of the suit land and they are dispossessed from the suit land or any part thereof during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners of the suit land. During the settlement operation in the year 1973 to 1976, the suit land was described as Khasra No.369 and the plaintiffs were recorded as owners as is evident from the jamabandi for the year 1965-66 and 1960-61. The defendant in collusion with the revenue staff got themselves recorded in possession over the suit land without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs as tenant at will, in fact the latest revenue entries qua the possession of the defendant is a mere paper entry as the defendant was never inducted as tenant over the suit land. The entry qua the possession of the suit land during the settlement operation or earlier was recorded behind the back of the plaintiffs. The prescribed procedure has been laid down under the law, for the change of the revenue entry and the same has not been followed. On the basis of mutation and other revenue entries, the defendant started threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land and therefore, the plaintiff are left with no alternative but to institute the present suit. 3. On the basis of mutation and other revenue entries, the defendant started threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land and therefore, the plaintiff are left with no alternative but to institute the present suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, cause of action, jurisdiction, estoppel etc. On merits, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entered as owner in the revenue record for the year 1991-92, as per remarks column in red ink in the jamabandi for the year 1991-92, the defendant has been conferred with the ownership rights vide mutation No.316 under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and therefore, the defendant after acquiring the proprietary rights under the law is a lawful owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have not challenged the mutation before the competent Appellate Court as provided under the law. The defendant also pleaded that during the settlement operation which took place in the year 1973 to 1976, the suit land was shown as Khasra No.369 and the plaintiffs were not shown as owner in possession of the suit land in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66 and 1960-61 and at that time Shri Chhaju Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs has been shown as owner of the suit land and the defendant in possession as Gair Marushi tenant on payment of Gala Batai. The defendant was inducted as tenant by deceased Chhaju Ram, in the year 1961-62 on payment of Gala Batai. The defendant was paying Galla Batai to Sh. Chhaju Ram till his death. The defendant was rightly entered as tenant under the landowner in the revenue papers during the settlement operation and the subsequent entries in the revenue record continued as per the factual position on the spot and therefore, the suit filed by the appellants is not maintainable. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, 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 owners-in-possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction,a s prayed for? OPP. 3. 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 owners-in-possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction,a s prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time? OPP. 4. Whether the mutation No.316 sanctioned on 9.2.1999 regarding the khasra Nos. 685, 686 in favour of the defendants illegal, null and void? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from suing the defendant by is act and conduct? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 8. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD. 9. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiffs/respondents herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 11.3.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the judgment and decree as passed by ADJ below is without jurisdiction in view of full Court judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Chunia's case? Substantial question of Law No.1: 8. Mutation regarding conferment of proprietary rights vis-a-vis the suit property, was attested, on 9.2.1999. Exhibit pronouncing the aforesaid fact is borne in Ex.P-4. Whether the judgment and decree as passed by ADJ below is without jurisdiction in view of full Court judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Chunia's case? Substantial question of Law No.1: 8. Mutation regarding conferment of proprietary rights vis-a-vis the suit property, was attested, on 9.2.1999. Exhibit pronouncing the aforesaid fact is borne in Ex.P-4. The plaintiffs assailed, the recording of mutation, borne in Ex.P-4, on the ground (a) of the Collector concerned, who attested the mutation rather making a decision without summoning the plaintiffs; (b) his hence sanctioning it behind the back of the plaintiffs; (c) Collector concerned, who attested the apposite mutation borne in Ex.P-4, omitting, to make deep discernments from the apt revenue entries vis-a-vis theirs divulging existence of a valid consensual bilateral relation of giar morisi inter se the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, one Chajju Ram, and, the defendant; (d) his omitting to also gauge, from, Ex. D-1, whether, it stood preceded by any valid order made by the revenue authority concerned, whereupon, alone it would acquire sanctity besides thereupon alone, the revenue entries, occurring in the subsequent thereto revenue records, reflecting the defendant to be gair morusi, under, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, one Chhaju Ram, hence would also likewise attain sanctity. In case (i) disaffirmative evidence, qua the aforesaid facets, rather emerges, upon, a deep circumspect study of the evidence on record, (ii) thereupon, alone the clout of the exception carved by the Hon'ble Full Bench, of, this Court in case titled as Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram reported in 1991(1) Sim. L.C. 223, would rather beget arousal, apt exception (b) whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “(b) the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, except in case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with.” (iii) whereas in absence thereof, the statutory bar against Civil Courts testing the validity of orders made by the competent authority, exercising powers, under the H.P. H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), would rather hence beget attraction, and, concomitantly Civil Courts, would stand divested, of, jurisdiction, to test validities thereof. 9. 9. Initially, it is to be gauged, whether the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, namely, one Chhaju Ram in the year 1961-62, had validly inducted, the defendant, as a gair a morusi vis-a-vis the suit land, and, whether the inception of entries in respect thereto, occurring, in Ex. D-1, are well founded besides are anchored, upon, a valid order made by the Revenue Officer concerned. The defendant omitted to place on record any evidence, for underscoring the trite factum, qua preceding the making of Ex D-1, any valid order being recorded by the Revenue Officer concerned. However, the learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant has contended with vigour, that, it was rather incumbent upon the plaintiffs, to sustain their espousal of the entries borne in Ex. D-1, being ill founded nor theirs being preceded by any valid orders, being recorded by the Revenue Officer concerned, (i) and, their relevant omissions rather imputing conclusive sanctity vis-a-vis them, given theirs carrying a presumption of truth, and, given no evidence hence being adduced to rebut the presumption of truth carried by them. However, the aforesaid submission is squarely blunted by the trite factum, of, dehors the plaintiff, omitting to adduce cogent evidence qua the facet aforesaid, his omission being inconsequential, (ii) especially when rather it being incumbent upon the defendant, who intends to sustain and validate the inception, of the apposite entries, to hence adduce evidence for validating them, (iii) and, Courts being under a solemn duty for satisfying its judicial conscience, to ask for adduction, of, best evidence, for, hence sustaining the apt entry(ies). Reiteratedly, hence when the apposite evidence, comprised in valid orders, preceding the making of the entries, being evidently recorded, for hence sustaining the inception of the entries occurring in Ex. D-1, rather is grossly amiss, (iv) thereupon, the inception of the entries borne in Ex.D-1, reflecting the defendants( to be gair morusi, upon, the suit land, rather gets capsized also thereupon, they are rendered bereft of credence. Moreover, the testification rendered by the defendant, while deposing as DW-1, especially the one borne, in his cross-examination, is extremely nebulous and fragile, (v) conspicuously, when he is unable, to, with precision make any echoing vis-a-vis the time, whereat, he was inducted as gair morisi vis-a-vis the suit land, by the predecessorin- interest of the plaintiff, namely, one Chhaju Ram. Moreover, the testification rendered by the defendant, while deposing as DW-1, especially the one borne, in his cross-examination, is extremely nebulous and fragile, (v) conspicuously, when he is unable, to, with precision make any echoing vis-a-vis the time, whereat, he was inducted as gair morisi vis-a-vis the suit land, by the predecessorin- interest of the plaintiff, namely, one Chhaju Ram. (vi) Moreover, he has continued to testify, of, no writing being prepared, at the apposite stage of his being inducted by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, as gair morusi vis-a-vis the suit land. He further testifies that in respect of his espousing, of his purportedly being validly displayed, in the revenue records, as gair morusi vis-a-vis the suit land, his omitting to appear, before the revenue officer concerned nor his statement being recorded thereat, also with his continuing to testify, qua his not preferring any apposite application, qua the facet aforesaid, before, the Revenue Officer concerned. Naturally, thereupon, the effects of the aforesaid rendered testifications, of DW-1, (a) are that the aforesaid articulations occurring, in his cross-examination, rather making, a clear candid display, of, the inception of the entries borne in Ex. D-1, and, theirs displaying, the defendant being inducted, as a gair morusi vis-a-vis the suit land, by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, hence not being founded, upon, any valid order, standing pronounced by the Revenue Officer concerned, (b) rather it being construable to be a stray entry or a fictitious entry. The further omission of the defendant, to, place on record the apt khasra girdawaris, maintained with respect to the suit land, despite, his voicing his awareness qua biannual preparation of khasra girdawaris, (c) does also boost an inference of all entries, carrying the apt reflection, and, borne in the revenue records, prepared subsequent to the making of Ex. D-1, also hence gathering an alike stain of suspicion besides a stain of fictitiousness. Reiteratedly, when the inception of the apposite entries, borne in Ex. D-1, are, for the reasons aforestated, rather invalid, hence, the entries carried in the subsequent thereto jamabandis prepared vis-a-vis the suit land, also hence acquire an alike stain of vitiation. D-1, also hence gathering an alike stain of suspicion besides a stain of fictitiousness. Reiteratedly, when the inception of the apposite entries, borne in Ex. D-1, are, for the reasons aforestated, rather invalid, hence, the entries carried in the subsequent thereto jamabandis prepared vis-a-vis the suit land, also hence acquire an alike stain of vitiation. Corollary of the aforesaid inference, is of hence, with the defendant failing to establish, the trite factum, of a valid subsisting consensual bilateral relation, of landlord and tenant, rather coming into existence inter se him, and, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, (ii) thereupon, the Collector, who attested the mutation conferring proprietary rights, upon the defendant, by recording an order borne in Ex.P-4, has visibly contravened, the salient cardinal principle, of, the apposite statutory tenets, borne in the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, (iii) provisions whereof contemplate qua unless evidence clinches, the eruption of an undisputed valid status, of landlord, and, tenant inter se the litigating parties, (iv) thereupon, alone the Collector concerned exercising, jurisdiction under the Act, hence validly proceeding to attest the relevant mutations, for hence conferring proprietary rights, upon, the purported gair morusi, whereas, in absence thereof, his refraining to render the relevant orders. Apparently, for the reasons aforestated, when the inception of the apposite revenue entries, borne, in Ex. D-1, is rather rendered vulnerable to skepticism, (v) besides with this Court concluding of the entries borne therein, being vitiated, conspicuously, hence for want of any valid order preceding therewith, being recorded by the Revenue Officer concerned, (v) whereupon, this Court concludes, that with here at, the imperative rubric, of, there imperatively existing an evident valid bilateral consensual relation of landlord and tenant inter se the defendant, and, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, being rather grossly amiss, (vi) thereupon the apposite order is illegitimized, (vii) also hence with the Collector concerned, omitting to, discern from the records concerned, whether it sustains the aforesaid trite factum, re-emphasisingly, hence renders his official act, of, attesting mutations qua the apt conferment of proprietary rights, through, an order borne in Ex.P-4, to be in gross infraction, of, the apt statutory provisions. Consequently, with the apposite exception, carved in Chuhniya Devi's case (supra), against, Civil Courts being estopped to entertain any suit, wherein a challenge is made upon any order recorded by the Collector, hence, exercising jurisdiction under the Act, (i) rather making a display of its evidently holding play, (ii) upon evident display, of, the apt statutory provisions rather being infracted, infraction whereof, for all the reasons aforestated, has hereat hence evidently occurred, thereupon, the Civil Court, held jurisdiction, to entertain the suit, for testing the validity of the order, rendered by the Revenue Officer concerned, whereby proprietary rights, stood conferred upon the defendant. 10. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs rather averred, as also, testified (i) of Ex.P-4, being recorded behind their back, hence, its rendition being militative vis-a-vis the salient principle of audi alteram partem. A reading of Ex.P-4, the apposite order, whereby, proprietary rights stood conferred, upon the defendant, does display of the plaintiffs recording their presence, at the time contemporaneous to the Collector concerned, hence, attesting the mutation concerned, (ii) nonetheless, when there is an evident acerbic contest vis-a-vis the presence of the plaintiffs thereat, hence it was incumbent upon the defendants, to produce the record, appertaining to issuance of summons by the collector concerned, upon the plaintiffs, (iii) whereupon, alone it would be discernable, qua whether there were apposite refusals, to accept service of summons by the plaintiffs or whether they accepted service, (iv) whereafter, upon discerning the apposite disclosures borne therein, it would be apt to conclude qua the recitals borne in Ex.P-4, of, the plaintiffs recording their presence, at the time contemporaneous vis-a-vis its attestation, hence, acquiring an aura of validity besides being truthful. However, neither the summons issued by the Collector concerned, for eliciting the presence, of the plaintiffs before him, stood adduced, nor when the signatured statement of the plaintiffs, in personification of theirs recording their presence before the Collector concerned, stood adduced into evidence, thereupon, it appears that the occurrence of recitals in Ex.P-4, of the plaintiffs in contemporaneity thereof, rather recording their presence before him, hence, is a sheer falsity, (i) whereupon, no credence or validity can be imputed to Ex.P-4, rather it is to be concluded to be rendered in infraction of the salient principles of audi alteram partem, hence, rearing, of, a challenge vis-a-vis Ex. P-4, before a Civil Court, rather falls, within the ambit, of, the exception carved in Chuhniya Devi's case (supra). 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Substantial questions of law No.1 answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. 12. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 31- D/2002 is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.