JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit bearing No. 204 of 1992, wherethrough, he espoused, for, rendition of a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants, and, qua the stood khasra numbers, stood decreed, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Hamirpur, H.P. However, in an appeal, carried therefrom, by the aggrieved defendants, before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, the latter Court, upon Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2004, made a verdict in reversal, vis-a-vis, the verdict recorded, by the trial Court concerned, and, obviously proceeded, to, dismiss the plaintiff's suit. 2. The deceased plaintiff, through his LRs, has, through the instant appeal, hence, cast a challenge, upon, the verdict recorded, by the learned first appellate Court, and, also strives, to, beget reversal thereof. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein (for short the plaintiff) had filed a suit seeking rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that he is the owner as well as tenant in possession of Khasra No. 52/2 measuring 1K-12 M out of the land comprised in khata No. 86 min, Khatoni No. 94, khasra No. 52 measuring 1K-14 M as described in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1986-87 situated in Tika Kangru Tappa Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (for short "suit khasra numbers") and the defendants be restrained from making interference over the suit khasra numbers in any manner. The afore reliefs have been claimed by the plaintiff on the ground that the suit land has been shown in possession of the plaintiff as tenant. One of the owner of the suit land named Sher Singh applied for resumption which was allowed to the extent of 2 marlas vide mutation No. 455, as a result of which the land comprised in khasra No. 52/1 measuring 2 marlas was resumed in favour of Sher Singh and the suit khasra numbers remained with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also given and conferred proprietary rights qua the share of Shamsher Singh to the extent of 2 marlas vide mutation No. 454 out of the suit khasra numbers of which he became owner and continued to be tenant in respect of rest of the land in question. The plaintiff was also given and conferred proprietary rights qua the share of Shamsher Singh to the extent of 2 marlas vide mutation No. 454 out of the suit khasra numbers of which he became owner and continued to be tenant in respect of rest of the land in question. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit Khasra numbers, however defendant No.1 tried to cause interference and threated to take forcible possession of the suit khasra numbers. 4. The defendants filed written-statement and thereby resisted and contested the suit by taking preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppal and valuation. On merits, it is pleaded that the suit khasra numbers are in possession of defendant No.1 and his family members. Even proprietary rights had been conferred in favour of defendant No.1. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The plaintiff filed replication and thereby reaffirmed and reasserted the averments made in the plaint and controverted the averments made in the written statement. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 2. Whether order dated 24.12.1981 of the A.C Iind grade is illegal and is not binding upon the defendants, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is its value for this purpose, OP Parties. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for ? OPP 6. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the aggrieved defendants, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded, by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the 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, this Court had admitted, the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law: "1. 8. Now the 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, this Court had admitted, the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in view of the resumption order passed by the Land Reforms Officer on the application of Sher Singh and the mutation orders Ext. PC and Ext. PD consequently passed and the order Ext. PE having become final, it was open to the defendants to challenge the said order in the collateral proceedings? 2. Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and the pleadings of the parties and ignoring the material evidence particularly the statements of PW-2 Amar Singh and PW-3 Samarjit Singh and the resumption order and mutations Ext. PC and Ext. PD as also the order Ext. PE?" Substantial questions of law:- 9. For meteing an answer, to, the afore formulated substantial questions of law, it is deemed imperative, to, relegate, the, lis onto, the stage of, preparation, of, the hereinafter alluded, apt revenue records. The genesis of the lis, is, embroiled in (a) presumption of truth, or, otherwise being attracted, vis-a-vis, the, jamabandis appertaining to the suit land, and, borne in Ex. D-5, wherein reflections are cast, vis-a-vis, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants No. 1 to 3, one Mahantu hence carrying the status of "Gair Marusi", vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (b) and, also whether the subsequent thereto alike reflections, as, cast in the jamabandi(s) appertaining to, the, suit khasra numbers, and, conspicuously, also, in Ex. D-1, wherein the defendant Kishore Chand, the successor-in-interest of Mahantu, upon, demise of his predecessor-in-interest, hence is, in, the column of possession carried in Ex. D-1, rather, is recorded, to be carrying the status of "Gair Marusi", vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, do or not carry the apt tenacities. Also the efficacy, and, import of, Ex. D-1, wherein the defendant Kishore Chand, the successor-in-interest of Mahantu, upon, demise of his predecessor-in-interest, hence is, in, the column of possession carried in Ex. D-1, rather, is recorded, to be carrying the status of "Gair Marusi", vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, do or not carry the apt tenacities. Also the efficacy, and, import of, Ex. DX, exhibit whereof, is, an order pronounced by the Revenue Officer concerned, in, a lis engaging the land owners concerned, and, defendant Kishore Chand, rather suing through his father Mahantu, wherein, a, declaration, is, made qua defendant Kishore Chand, carrying the status, of, a Gair Marusi, vis-a-vis, the suit Khasra numbers, and, also a further declaration is borne therein, qua, upon coming into force, of, the apt statutory mandate, borne in HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (for short "the act"), (i) hence his being entitled, to, automatic conferment of proprietary rights, (ii) besides wherein a declaration, is, borne, qua, land owners, in exclusion, of, Shamsher Singh, who, stands arrayed in the memo of parties, in, Ex.DX, being barred to claim resumption of the suit khasra numbers mentioned therein, and, numbers whereof bear analogity, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, embodied in the extant lis, likewise does warrant, rather imperative fathoming(s) qua its vigour. 10. Since Ex. DX is pronounced subsequent to the drawings, of, the afore alluded, to, hence afore jamabandis, as, appertain, to the suit khasra numbers, and, wherewithins rather the afore reflections are carried, (i) thereupon, and, cumulatively alongwith hence Shamsher Singh being also included, in, the array of appellants, in the opposite lis, whereon Ex. DX, stood pronounced, (ii) thereupon, the, consequences thereof, are, qua the presumption of truth, as, carried by the afore reflections, as, borne in the afore jamabandies hence acquiring a deep hue of tenacity, besides conclusivity, (iii) conspicuously given the participation of afore Shamsher Singh, in the afore lis, (iv) moreover when there is also a declaration pronounced in Ex. DX, vis-a-vis, the land owners inclusive of Shamsher Singh, being barred, to, claim resumption of suit khasra numbers, thereupon the order of mutation recorded in Ex. PC, and, in Ex. PD, per se ipso facto, loosing its/theirs apt vigour, it/their being beyond the domain of Ex. DX, (v) rather the afore orders borne in the afore exhibit rather are concluded to arise, from, Shamsher Singh obtaining the afore orders, through, his practicing suppressio veri, and, suggestio falsi. PC, and, in Ex. PD, per se ipso facto, loosing its/theirs apt vigour, it/their being beyond the domain of Ex. DX, (v) rather the afore orders borne in the afore exhibit rather are concluded to arise, from, Shamsher Singh obtaining the afore orders, through, his practicing suppressio veri, and, suggestio falsi. 11. Be that as it may, under orders recorded, in, Ex. PE, the mutation conferring proprietary right, upon, the defendant Kishore Chand, was reviewed, (a) however the afore order of review, of, the apposite mutation, hence conferring proprietary rights, vis-a-vis, Kishore chand, is, perse legally infirm, (b) as, it is made by the AC-IInd grade Hamirpur, who however is not the apt statutorily designated, reviewing authority, in the apt thereto provisions borne, in, Section 114 of the Act, (c) and, rather with the requisite statutorily designated reviewing authority under the afore provisions of the Act, being, the Land Reforms Officer concerned, thereupon Ex. PE lacks judicial tenacity, it being made by an officer rather not holding the apt judicial empowerment, hence, to make it. 12. In aftermath, all the consequential therewith corrections, as, made in the jamabandis, as, appertain to the suit khasra number, and, prepared subsequent thereto, are, all construable to acquire, an, alike taint of suppressio veri suggestio falsi, (i) and, are neither amenable, to be, meted any credence, for eroding the vigour of the order made under Ex. DX, (ii) nor, hence therethrough, the, presumption of truth attracted, upon, the jamabandies appertaining, up to, the year 1973-1974, is either dislodged nor is displaced, (iii) necessarily, hence the verdict pronounced, upon, the Civil Suit hence decreeing the afore Civil Suit, is, unmeritworthy, and, rather the verdict recorded by the learned first appellate Court, is, both meritworthy, and, tenable. 13. Be that as it may, during, the pendency of the instant appeal, before this Court, the aggrieved appellant, had, through an application cast under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, strived to obtain permission, to, adduce into evidence, an, order made by the LRO, in a lis, engaging Shamsher Singh, and, the plaintiff Paras Ram, wherein there, is, an order qua Shamsher Singh, being entitled to resume the suit land, (i) and, wherein also there is an order qua residues thereof, bestowing leverage, to, Paras Ram, to, claim statutory vestment of proprietary rights. However, the, espoused relief is declined, as, the adduction into evidence, of, the afore order is neither just nor essential, for, resting the lis, engaging the parties at contest rather when Ex. DX, barred all the co-owners, to, claim resumption of suit khasra numbers, (ii) and, when therein, in, the array of litigants, the name of Shamsher singh also exists, thereupon the apt order in respect whereof, strivings are made, hence, to, adduce, it, as, additional evidence, is, also construable to obtained by Shamsher Singh, by his proactively practicing suppressio veri suggestio falsi, comprised in his concealing, from, the sight of, the, authority concerned, the, order comprised, in, Ex. DX. 14. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed, and, the impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Records be sent back. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit bearing No. 204 of 1992, wherethrough, he espoused, for, rendition of a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants, and, qua the stood khasra numbers, stood decreed, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Hamirpur, H.P. However, in an appeal, carried therefrom, by the aggrieved defendants, before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, the latter Court, upon Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2004, made a verdict in reversal, vis-a-vis, the verdict recorded, by the trial Court concerned, and, obviously proceeded, to, dismiss the plaintiff's suit. 2. The deceased plaintiff, through his LRs, has, through the instant appeal, hence, cast a challenge, upon, the verdict recorded, by the learned first appellate Court, and, also strives, to, beget reversal thereof. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein (for short the plaintiff) had filed a suit seeking rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that he is the owner as well as tenant in possession of Khasra No. 52/2 measuring 1K-12 M out of the land comprised in khata No. 86 min, Khatoni No. 94, khasra No. 52 measuring 1K-14 M as described in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1986-87 situated in Tika Kangru Tappa Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (for short "suit khasra numbers") and the defendants be restrained from making interference over the suit khasra numbers in any manner. The afore reliefs have been claimed by the plaintiff on the ground that the suit land has been shown in possession of the plaintiff as tenant. One of the owner of the suit land named Sher Singh applied for resumption which was allowed to the extent of 2 marlas vide mutation No. 455, as a result of which the land comprised in khasra No. 52/1 measuring 2 marlas was resumed in favour of Sher Singh and the suit khasra numbers remained with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also given and conferred proprietary rights qua the share of Shamsher Singh to the extent of 2 marlas vide mutation No. 454 out of the suit khasra numbers of which he became owner and continued to be tenant in respect of rest of the land in question. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit Khasra numbers, however defendant No.1 tried to cause interference and threated to take forcible possession of the suit khasra numbers. 4. The defendants filed written-statement and thereby resisted and contested the suit by taking preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppal and valuation. On merits, it is pleaded that the suit khasra numbers are in possession of defendant No.1 and his family members. Even proprietary rights had been conferred in favour of defendant No.1. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The plaintiff filed replication and thereby reaffirmed and reasserted the averments made in the plaint and controverted the averments made in the written statement. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 2. Whether order dated 24.12.1981 of the A.C Iind grade is illegal and is not binding upon the defendants, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is its value for this purpose, OP Parties. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for ? OPP 6. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for ? OPP 6. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the aggrieved defendants, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded, by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the 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, this Court had admitted, the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in view of the resumption order passed by the Land Reforms Officer on the application of Sher Singh and the mutation orders Ext. PC and Ext. PD consequently passed and the order Ext. PE having become final, it was open to the defendants to challenge the said order in the collateral proceedings? 2. Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and the pleadings of the parties and ignoring the material evidence particularly the statements of PW-2 Amar Singh and PW-3 Samarjit Singh and the resumption order and mutations Ext. PC and Ext. PD as also the order Ext. PE?" Substantial questions of law:- 9. For meteing an answer, to, the afore formulated substantial questions of law, it is deemed imperative, to, relegate, the, lis onto, the stage of, preparation, of, the hereinafter alluded, apt revenue records. The genesis of the lis, is, embroiled in (a) presumption of truth, or, otherwise being attracted, vis-a-vis, the, jamabandis appertaining to the suit land, and, borne in Ex. D-5, wherein reflections are cast, vis-a-vis, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants No. 1 to 3, one Mahantu hence carrying the status of "Gair Marusi", vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (b) and, also whether the subsequent thereto alike reflections, as, cast in the jamabandi(s) appertaining to, the, suit khasra numbers, and, conspicuously, also, in Ex. D-1, wherein the defendant Kishore Chand, the successor-in-interest of Mahantu, upon, demise of his predecessor-in-interest, hence is, in, the column of possession carried in Ex. D-1, wherein the defendant Kishore Chand, the successor-in-interest of Mahantu, upon, demise of his predecessor-in-interest, hence is, in, the column of possession carried in Ex. D-1, rather, is recorded, to be carrying the status of "Gair Marusi", vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, do or not carry the apt tenacities. Also the efficacy, and, import of, Ex. DX, exhibit whereof, is, an order pronounced by the Revenue Officer concerned, in, a lis engaging the land owners concerned, and, defendant Kishore Chand, rather suing through his father Mahantu, wherein, a, declaration, is, made qua defendant Kishore Chand, carrying the status, of, a Gair Marusi, vis-a-vis, the suit Khasra numbers, and, also a further declaration is borne therein, qua, upon coming into force, of, the apt statutory mandate, borne in HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (for short "the act"), (i) hence his being entitled, to, automatic conferment of proprietary rights, (ii) besides wherein a declaration, is, borne, qua, land owners, in exclusion, of, Shamsher Singh, who, stands arrayed in the memo of parties, in, Ex.DX, being barred to claim resumption of the suit khasra numbers mentioned therein, and, numbers whereof bear analogity, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, embodied in the extant lis, likewise does warrant, rather imperative fathoming(s) qua its vigour. 10. Since Ex. DX is pronounced subsequent to the drawings, of, the afore alluded, to, hence afore jamabandis, as, appertain, to the suit khasra numbers, and, wherewithins rather the afore reflections are carried, (i) thereupon, and, cumulatively alongwith hence Shamsher Singh being also included, in, the array of appellants, in the opposite lis, whereon Ex. DX, stood pronounced, (ii) thereupon, the, consequences thereof, are, qua the presumption of truth, as, carried by the afore reflections, as, borne in the afore jamabandies hence acquiring a deep hue of tenacity, besides conclusivity, (iii) conspicuously given the participation of afore Shamsher Singh, in the afore lis, (iv) moreover when there is also a declaration pronounced in Ex. DX, vis-a-vis, the land owners inclusive of Shamsher Singh, being barred, to, claim resumption of suit khasra numbers, thereupon the order of mutation recorded in Ex. PC, and, in Ex. PD, per se ipso facto, loosing its/theirs apt vigour, it/their being beyond the domain of Ex. DX, (v) rather the afore orders borne in the afore exhibit rather are concluded to arise, from, Shamsher Singh obtaining the afore orders, through, his practicing suppressio veri, and, suggestio falsi. PC, and, in Ex. PD, per se ipso facto, loosing its/theirs apt vigour, it/their being beyond the domain of Ex. DX, (v) rather the afore orders borne in the afore exhibit rather are concluded to arise, from, Shamsher Singh obtaining the afore orders, through, his practicing suppressio veri, and, suggestio falsi. 11. Be that as it may, under orders recorded, in, Ex. PE, the mutation conferring proprietary right, upon, the defendant Kishore Chand, was reviewed, (a) however the afore order of review, of, the apposite mutation, hence conferring proprietary rights, vis-a-vis, Kishore chand, is, perse legally infirm, (b) as, it is made by the AC-IInd grade Hamirpur, who however is not the apt statutorily designated, reviewing authority, in the apt thereto provisions borne, in, Section 114 of the Act, (c) and, rather with the requisite statutorily designated reviewing authority under the afore provisions of the Act, being, the Land Reforms Officer concerned, thereupon Ex. PE lacks judicial tenacity, it being made by an officer rather not holding the apt judicial empowerment, hence, to make it. 12. In aftermath, all the consequential therewith corrections, as, made in the jamabandis, as, appertain to the suit khasra number, and, prepared subsequent thereto, are, all construable to acquire, an, alike taint of suppressio veri suggestio falsi, (i) and, are neither amenable, to be, meted any credence, for eroding the vigour of the order made under Ex. DX, (ii) nor, hence therethrough, the, presumption of truth attracted, upon, the jamabandies appertaining, up to, the year 1973-1974, is either dislodged nor is displaced, (iii) necessarily, hence the verdict pronounced, upon, the Civil Suit hence decreeing the afore Civil Suit, is, unmeritworthy, and, rather the verdict recorded by the learned first appellate Court, is, both meritworthy, and, tenable. 13. Be that as it may, during, the pendency of the instant appeal, before this Court, the aggrieved appellant, had, through an application cast under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, strived to obtain permission, to, adduce into evidence, an, order made by the LRO, in a lis, engaging Shamsher Singh, and, the plaintiff Paras Ram, wherein there, is, an order qua Shamsher Singh, being entitled to resume the suit land, (i) and, wherein also there is an order qua residues thereof, bestowing leverage, to, Paras Ram, to, claim statutory vestment of proprietary rights. However, the, espoused relief is declined, as, the adduction into evidence, of, the afore order is neither just nor essential, for, resting the lis, engaging the parties at contest rather when Ex. DX, barred all the co-owners, to, claim resumption of suit khasra numbers, (ii) and, when therein, in, the array of litigants, the name of Shamsher singh also exists, thereupon the apt order in respect whereof, strivings are made, hence, to, adduce, it, as, additional evidence, is, also construable to obtained by Shamsher Singh, by his proactively practicing suppressio veri suggestio falsi, comprised in his concealing, from, the sight of, the, authority concerned, the, order comprised, in, Ex. DX. 14. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed, and, the impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Records be sent back.