JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeals are directed, against, a common verdict recorded by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushehar, H.P. (for short first appellate Court), upon, Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2004, and, upon Civil Appeal, No. 3 of 2004, wherethrough the plaintiff's appeal stood allowed, and, their suit was decreed, and, the defendants crossobjections stood dismissed. 2. The appellants herein (for short the defendants) being aggrieved from the verdict(s) recorded by the learned first appellate Court, hence, preferred the instant RSAs before this Court. 3. Since common questions of law, are, involved in both the instant appeals, hence these are amenable for, hence, a common verdict being rendered thereon. 4. The Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff one Benj Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.1 and 2 herein, for short "the plaintiff") has sought a decree of possession of land comprised in khata No. 17 Khatauni No. 27 measuring 21.15 bighas situated in Mauza Labana Sadana and land comprised in khata Khatauni No. 20/30 measuring 8.10 bighas situated in Chak Molgee, as mentioned in jamabandi for the year 1973-74 (for short the "suit land") on the ground that he is owner of the suit land, and, at one point of time he had been residing in this part of the area before migrating to village Nail of Tehsil Karsog of 30-40 years ago. Devi Saran, Predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 8 was his brother and he was residing at village Labana Sadana. Before leaving this place, he handed over the suit land to his above named brother for cultivation with the understanding that as and when he would return, the suit land would be handed over to him. In fact he inducted Devi Saran as a licencee over the suit land. On the basis of the above, he has challenged the correctness of the revenue entries showing Tikam Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 3 to 8 and Tulsi Ram and defendant No.1 Sheeshi Ram as Gair Mauroosi (Tenant in will) in respect of the suit land. As per him, he had at no point of time had inducted them as tenants over the suit land, nor, he had he ever received any rent from them, or, their predecessors-in-interest, either in kind or in cash. As per him, he had at no point of time had inducted them as tenants over the suit land, nor, he had he ever received any rent from them, or, their predecessors-in-interest, either in kind or in cash. Prior to the demise of his brother namely Devi Saran, he used to come to village Labana Sadana frequently, but, after his demise he did not come to his village so frequently. By taking advantage of his absence, the defendants wrongfully got attested mutation No. 14 dated 19.4.1989 in their favour on the ground that since he has not been heard of for the last 40-50 years so, he be presumed to be dead, when he came to know about the afore mutation, he moved an appropriate application before the revenue authority concerned, and, thereafter afore mutation stood reviewed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Rampur on 28.9.1994, and, the entry qua ownership was restored in his name. Thereafter, he requested the defendants to handover the possession of the suit land to him, but, they did not accept his request. Hence, the present suit. 5. The contesting defendants have contested the suit of the plaintiff. They initially filed written statement on 27.10.1998 which was subsequently got amended by them by moving an application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC which was allowed in revision by this Court, vide, order dated 19.6.2000. The defendants raised preliminary objections of locus standi, misjoinder of cause of action, jurisdiction, valuation and limitation. On merits they admitted that previously Benj Ram who was real brother of Devi Saran was recorded owner of the suit land, however, they denied that the present plaintiff is the same person, and, has pleaded that in fact the present plaintiff is shiv Ram. As per them the present plaintiff is impostor. They further pleaded that present story has been invented by his attorney, in, connivance with certain persons in the village, who, intend to grab the suit land, and, thus he is not entitled to file the present suit. According to them, about 55/60 years ago Benj Ram, left this place but he inducted Devi Saran and Sheeshi Ram, as, non-occupancy tenant over the suit land, and, the rent agreed inter-se them was the land revenue and other cessies. Thereafter Devi Saran and Sheeshi Ram cultivated the suit land and paid the land revenue and other cessies to the appropriate authority. Thereafter Devi Saran and Sheeshi Ram cultivated the suit land and paid the land revenue and other cessies to the appropriate authority. Thereafter a family partition took place inter-se the contesting defendants somewhere in the year 1951-52, and, the land situated in chak molgi fell into the share of defendant No.1, and, thereafter he remained in possession thereof. Initially, this parcel of the land was Banjar, and, was used for the purpose of Gasni, however, lateron the defendants planted apple plants over this part of the suit land too. Since then, they were non- occupancy tenants over the suit land, therefore, proprietary rights in respect of the suit land were conferred upon them, as, per the mandate of section 104 of H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1962, and, in this behalf a mutation was also attested on 17.5.1977. On the afore basis, they further pleaded that they have now become absolute owners of the suit land. In the alternative, it has been pleaded that since the land situated in chak Molgi was in open, peaceful and un-interupted possession of the defendants to the very knowledge of Benj Ram, so they have perfected their title in respect thereof by way of adverse possession. They also admitted that Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, vide his order of 28.9.1994 had reviewed the earlier order of 19.4.1989, however, they have pleaded that the same is illegal, as, the same was done behind their back. They have also taken the plea that an apple orchard exists on the suit land, with a market value of not less than Rs.6,00,000/-. They have also pleaded that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, they have also pleaded that Civil Court is not competent to hear and decide the matter, as, the dispute is inter-se the tenant and a landlord. They have also taken the plea of the suit being not maintainable. 6. In the apt replication, the plaintiff controverted the contentions of the defendants, and, reiterated his stand taken in the plaint. They have also taken the plea of the suit being not maintainable. 6. In the apt replication, the plaintiff controverted the contentions of the defendants, and, reiterated his stand taken in the plaint. It is also averred in the replication that late Shri Benj Ram had left his native village in the year 1940 and settled in village Nail Panchayat Kalashan, Tehsil Karsog, as, he had solemnized marriage with a Harijan lady, and, it was not possible for him to reside and live in his native village, as, in those years, during the rule of Ex-Raja of Bushehar the Rajput marrying Harijan woman was not allowed to live in Rajput Society and in the afore circumstances, Benj Ram left his village. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not competent on the ground mentioned in preliminary objections No.1 and 2? OPD No. 1 to 8. 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action? OPD No. 1 to 8. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 1 to 8. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estoped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 1 to 8. 6. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the preset suit, as there exists relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties, s alleged? OPD 1 to 8. 7. Whether the suit has not been property valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and Court fees, if so, what is correct valuation of suit property? OPD 1 to 8. 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 1 to 8. 9. Whether the defendants were in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant and are entitled to the conferment of proprietary rights, as alleged? OPD 1 to 8. 10. If issue No. 9 is not proved, whether the defendants have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD 1 to 8. 11. Relief. 8. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. OPD 1 to 8. 10. If issue No. 9 is not proved, whether the defendants have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD 1 to 8. 11. Relief. 8. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, and, dismissed the cross-appeal/ crossobjections reared therebefore, hence, by the defendants. 9. Now, the, contesting defendants, have instituted, the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein, they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment(s), and, decree(s), by, the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal(s) came up for admission, on 28.12.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal(s), on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions, of law:- 4. Whether once the plaintiff has pleaded that he had left the suit land in the year 1940 and since then the defendants are in possession of the suit land, the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1996 is hopelessly time barred? 5. Whether the findings of the learned first appellate Court below are dehors and contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act especially when it is proved that Benj Ram has not been heard of or seen after the year 1940 by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive? 6. Whether there has been misreading or evidence, oral as well as documentary, by the learned first Appellate Court? Substantial question s of law:- 10. The defendants, stand aggrieved, by the disaffirmative findings recorded, upon, issues No. 8, 9 and 10, appertaining respectively to (a) the plaintiffs' suit being barred by limitation, and, (b) qua the defendants holding the status, of, non-occupancy tenant, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, theirs being entitled to automatic conferment of proprietary rights thereon, besides (c) appertaining to the defendants acquiring title, by adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit land. The defendants' resistance to the plaintiff's suit, for, possession, vis-a-vis, the suit land, is, contended in the apposite written-statement, to, arise from the plaintiff one Benj Ram not being the original Benj Ram, rather, his impersonating the identity and personality, of, the original Benj Ram. The defendants' resistance to the plaintiff's suit, for, possession, vis-a-vis, the suit land, is, contended in the apposite written-statement, to, arise from the plaintiff one Benj Ram not being the original Benj Ram, rather, his impersonating the identity and personality, of, the original Benj Ram. The afore resistance made by the defendants, is, anvilled, upon, (i) the afore being the real brother of Devi Saran, and, uncle of Shishi Ram, (ii) and, also with the afore being, close relatives, of, one Benj Ram hence both holding an intimate knowledge, vis-a-vis, the factum of his being alive, or his not being heard, of, for seven years, and, also with affirmative echoings being borne in the oral testifications, and, in, the, documentary evidence, thereupon the apt provisions of Section 107, and, 108 of Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, standing satiated, vis-a-vis them (iii) and, conspicuously qua, the plaintiff impersonating the identity and personality of their respective brother and uncle one Benj Ram, given his being proven to be dead, his, remaining unheard since past so many years, and, thereupon they strive, to, validate the mutation of inheritance attested, in, their favour. "S. 107 Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it. S. 108 Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years-Provided that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it." 11. The plaintiff had instituted, a, replication to the afore contention, reared by the defendants in their written-statement, instituted to the plaint, and, therein reared a contention, (i) qua since he had contracted a marriage with a Harijan woman, one Seeta, and, hence for avoiding the ill consequences, of, his being ostracized, thereupon, his shifting his abode from his native village, to, village Nail at Karsog, and, also his changing his name, from, Bainj Ram to Shiv Ram. 12. 12. For making a correct appreciation, of, the afore extracted relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, and, also for invaliding or validating the respective discharging evidence adduced hence, by the contesting parties, upon, the issues appertaining therewith, it is incumbent upon this Court, to, discern the subtle nuance thereof. The innate rubric embodied in the apt provisions, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (i) is, qua upon contentious issue(s) emerging inter-se the litigants, vis-a-vis, the trite factum, of, a man being alive or dead, and, it making vivid disclosure therein, that, his being alive for thirty years, (ii) thereupon, the burden of proving qua his being dead, being enjoined to be discharged by the apposite espousing litigant, and, though the apt excepting thereto statutory provisions, embodied in Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, may relieve the rigor thereof, by cogent evidence being adduced, qua given his remaining unheard, of, by his relatives, rather for seven years, thereupon the onus (a) qua therewith shifting, upon, the litigant making a proclamation, vis-a-vis the factum of his being alive (b) succinctly, the litigant making the afore proclamation(s), vis-a-vis, the, person concerned, being alive or his not being impersonated, is, enjoined to adduce hence consonant thereto discharging evidence, at, the apt stages, of, trial of the suit, and, requisite therewith onus(s), upon contra therewith evidence being adduced, hence, shifting upon each of the litigants, hence making the requisite proclamation(s). 13. Be that as it may, having culled the innate rubric, of, the apt statutory provisions, borne in the Indian evidence Act, and, combining them, with, the afore contention reared, by the contesting litigants, (i) thereupon it is incumbent to discern, from, the oral evidence adduced, by the defendants', as, comprised in the, the person(s) who are close relatives, of, purportedly deceased Bainj Ram, and, who would naturally have heard of him, of, him, if, was alive, and, (ii) evidence whereof, is, comprised in their oral statements, wherethrough they succor the apposite espousal made by them, in, their written-statement furnished to, the plaint, (iii) besides they strive to establish the afore, from, Ex. DA (abstract of Pariwar Register), and, Jamabandi Ex. DA (abstract of Pariwar Register), and, Jamabandi Ex. D-A1 (iv) wherefrom, the afore Bainj Ram, though, is contended in the apposite replication, to shift, for, hence avoiding his being ostracized, rather for, marrying a Harijan lady, hence from his native abode to village Nail, in Karsog, (v) and, with rather reflections being cast, in the afore register, qua for avoiding his detection at village Nail, the, afore Bainj Ram changing his name to Shiv Ram, (vi) yet all-effects, if any, of, theirs is/are oustable, given, with, his natural father being one Tholi Ram, and, with the afore exhibits, reflecting qua his being fathered, by one Jagat Ram, hence the afore changing, of, apt parentage, rather inviting suspicion. Consequently, on anvil of the afore documentary evidence, combined, with the oral depositions, of, the defendants, they strive to take benefit of section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, (a) and, espouse qua given theirs' being close relatives of Bainj Ram, and, theirs having not heard of him, for seven years, (b) thereupon he is presumed to be dead, hence theirs discharging the onus of proving qua his being dead and, they contend, that the decreeing of the plaintiff's suit, and, dismissal of their cross appeal/objections, hence warranting interference, as, upon, the, apposite onus being discharged, the afore hence shifting, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, rather, the latter rather failing to adduce consonant therewith evidence. 14. 14. However, in making the afore submission, the, learned counsel for the appellants, has, remained unmindful, vis-a-vis, upon, the apt onus shifting, upon, the plaintiff, to, prove qua his being alive or his being the original Bainj Ram, and, whether he, is, impersonating the identity and personality, of, the afore Bainj Ram, (i) hence, the plaintiff placing reliance, upon, an order of mutation of 18.5.1994, with echoing therein qua Bainj Ram, furnishing an affidavit, before the Officer, who, reviewed the earlier mutation, and, his therebefore being identified by Ram Chander s/o Gura Nand R/o village Molgi 15/20, (ii) besides, with echoings borne therein, qua his not visiting his native home, (iii) and, also the affidavit furnished before the Officer, who reviewed the earlier mutation, rather carrying echoings qua since thirty years preceding therefrom, his not, visiting his native home, (iv) and, that upon his acquiring knowledge, after five years, vis-a-vis, the apt, proclamation, being issued, hence rather with a false echoing qua his being dead, hence the earlier mutation obviously warranting its being reviewed, (v) and, also, with Zabar Singh being echoed qua his recording, his, presence before the Revenue Officer concerned, and, his making a statement, before the Revenue Officer concerned, that the earlier mutation, being erroneously recorded, (vi) and, the afore statement being made, for himself, and, as attorney for other co-defendants, and, conspicuously with the order made on 18.5.1994, hence making the afore emphatic clear enunciation qua the plaintiff, being the original Bainj Ram, and, his personality not being faked nor misrepresented, by the person cast, as, plaintiff in the extant suit, thereupon, and, therethrough the plaintiff has, upon, the requisite onus shifting, upon, him rather, hence proven qua his being alive, and, his being the genuine or original Bainj Ram. 15. Be that as it may, the, defendants have contended, that, the recording of the afore mutation, is, insignificant. However, the afore contention would carry weight, only upon, (a) the person who identified the afore Bainj ram before the Revenue Officer concerned, being ensured to be produced, in, the witness box, for, hence his ripping the tenacity of his therebefore hence identifying the afore Bainj Ram, to be, the original Bainj Ram. However, the afore contention would carry weight, only upon, (a) the person who identified the afore Bainj ram before the Revenue Officer concerned, being ensured to be produced, in, the witness box, for, hence his ripping the tenacity of his therebefore hence identifying the afore Bainj Ram, to be, the original Bainj Ram. The aggrieved defendants falsifying, the recitals borne in the order recorded on 28.9.1994, qua, hence the defendant Jabar Singh, for, himself, and, as attorney, for other co-defendants acquiescing vis-a-vis, the earlier mutation, rather being erroneously recorded. However, the afore evidence, for eroding the presumption of truth enjoyed by the orders recorded, on 18.5.1994, and, on 28.9.1994, rather remains unadduced, (a) and, when the afore orders are made by the revenue officer, during, his discharging his official duties, (b) and, hence when thereto, a, rebuttable presumption of truth is attached, given, the apt statutory ingredients, in consonance therewith, standing borne in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, (c) thereupon reiteratedly the afore apt presumption, gathers an aura of veracity hence within the ambit of the afore provisions. Conspicuously, for want of, potent discharging evidence, rather, for benumbing the afore inference, hence coming to be adduced by the defendants, (a) concomitantly therefrom it is concluded qua the evidence of the defendants being incredible, whereas, the evidence of the plaintiff, being credible, dehors documentary evidence borne in Ex. DA, whereunder the parentage of the plaintiff, is, different, than, the earlier reflections in the records appertaining to the suit land, (b) given the afore difference arising, from, his avoiding his detection at Nail whereto he shifted, for, avoiding his suffering ostracization, given, his contracting marriage with a harijan girl. However, the learned counsel, for the defendants contended with much vigor before this Court, that, the suit of the plaintiff, is, outside limitation, as, it is instituted beyond 12 years, since the making, of, an order of 1994. However, the learned counsel, for the defendants contended with much vigor before this Court, that, the suit of the plaintiff, is, outside limitation, as, it is instituted beyond 12 years, since the making, of, an order of 1994. However, even if prima-facie the suit, is, instituted beyond 12 years, since the making of an order hence respectively, by the revenue officer, in the year 1994, (i) yet the afore purported delay, is, rendered inconsequential, (ii) given, the plaintiff averring qua the relevant overt act of invasion, vis-a-vis, the suit land, arising initially in the year 1989, and, thereafter in the year 1994, (iii) and, when the commission of the relevant overt act, of invasion or usurpation, upon, the suit land, in respect whereof, he has an order of mutation, hence declaring qua his holding a valid title thereon, rather constitutes apt tenacious germination of causes of action, for, his instituting therefrom, a, suit for possession, hence, reckonings therefrom make his suit, to, fall within limitation. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The appeals stand dismissed, and, impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back.