JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants, who after having lost in both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant regular second appeal. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants'. 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that they were joint owners in possession over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 123, 222, 286, 289, kitas-4, Khata/Khatauni No.25/38, measuring 7-17 bighas, situated at Village Silh, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter to be referred to as the suit land) and the defendants had no right, title or interest over the same. It was averred that one Kahnu, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and one Govind, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, were sons of Chuhru and real brothers. They were joint owners of property situated in Village Silh, Pargana Tiun and in Village Chalehli, Pargana Sariun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. It was further averred that Govind had filed a suit against Kahnu being Civil Suit No. 35/10 which was decided on 24.09.1970 by the then Ld. Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur. However, after the decision of the suit, a compromise was effected between Govind and Kahnu vide which the suit land was allotted to the share of Kahnu, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and mutation No. 339 in respect whereof was sanctioned on 19.03.1972. As such, the decree dated 24.09.1970 passed in Civil Suit No. 35/10 had become inoperative in view of the compromise. It was also averred that Kahnu had subsequently sold a part of the land to the extent of 7-3 bighas in favour of the plaintiffs qua which mutation No. 456 had also been entered on 10.01.1988 and the rest of the land had been inherited by the plaintiffs on the death of Kahnu. Plaintiffs averred that the defendants being clever and shrewd persons had started interfering in the suit land on 20.02.2010 and on being asked, they revealed that they had managed to get a mutation qua the suit land sanctioned in their favour on 22.02.2010. Such mutation No.620 which was entered on the basis of judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, had become a nullity and inoperative upon the rights of the parties, was illegal and void. Such mutation No.620 which was entered on the basis of judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, had become a nullity and inoperative upon the rights of the parties, was illegal and void. The defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and to encumber and alienate the suit land, hence, the suit. On the basis of these averments, it was prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were co-owners in joint possession in equal share over the suit land be passed by declaring the mutation No. 620 dated 22.02.2010 as illegal, wrong, null and void. A further declaration was sought that the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1970 passed in Civil Suit No. 35/10 had become inoperative in view of the compromise between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties and thus had no bearing on the rights of the plaintiffs. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was prayed for and in the alternative a decree for possession was sought. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua suppression of material facts, estoppel, suit being hopelessly time barred and also barred by the principle of res judicata, valuation, maintainability and cause of action, were raised. It was averred that the compromise decree passed in the Civil Suit was binding upon the parties and there was no occasion for Govind to enter into any further compromise with Kahnu qua the suit land. The averments with regard to the compromise having been so entered after passing of the decree were emphatically denied. It was further averred that as a matter of fact Kahnu had dishonestly grabbed the share of Govind in the joint land and the mutations, if any, had been got entered by him, contrary to the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Senior Sub Judge, the same were not binding on the defendants. Similarly, the alleged sale by Kahnu in favour of the plaintiffs was also stated to be a sham transaction to grab the land of deceased Gobind. It was also averred that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant was put in possession of the suit land on 24.09.1970 in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the Court and, thus, there was no question of interference by the defendants in the possession of the plaintiffs qua the suit land. It was also averred that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant was put in possession of the suit land on 24.09.1970 in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the Court and, thus, there was no question of interference by the defendants in the possession of the plaintiffs qua the suit land. 5. Plaintiffs filed replication whereby the contents of the written statement were controverted and it was specifically denied that Govind had been put into possession over the suit land. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 06.01.2016 framed the following issues:- "1. Whether plaintiffs are co-owners in joint possession in equal share over the suit land, as claimed? OPP. 2. Whether revenue entries of the suit land vide mutation No. 620, dated 22.02.2010 in favour of defendants are illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1970 in Civil Suit No.35/10 passed by the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur has no bearing upon the right, title or interest of plaintiffs in the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit on account of their own acts, conduct, commissions and omissions, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is without cause of action, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is time barred, as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata, as alleged? OPD. 10. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 11. Relief." 7. After putting the parties to trial on the aforesaid issues, the learned trial Court found the plaintiffs to be not entitled to the reliefs and dismissed the suit and the appeal filed against the same also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate Court, constraining the plaintiffs to file the instant Regular Second Appeal. 8. 11. Relief." 7. After putting the parties to trial on the aforesaid issues, the learned trial Court found the plaintiffs to be not entitled to the reliefs and dismissed the suit and the appeal filed against the same also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate Court, constraining the plaintiffs to file the instant Regular Second Appeal. 8. It is vehemently argued by Shri Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment and decree dated 22.09.1969 Ex.DW1/B has lost its efficacy in view of the subsequent written compromise Ex.P-4 entered into between Govind and Kahnu whereby 2/5 share belonging to Govind Ram was relinquished by him in favour of Kahnu, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. 9. I find no merit in this contention for the simple reason that it is not at all in dispute that Govind had instituted a Civil Suit No.316/1 before the then Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, against Kahnu and the same was decreed on the basis of a compromise entered on 22.09.1969 (Ex.DW1/B). As per decree, 2/5 share in the present suit land had been passed in favour of Gobind Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants). The only allegation of the plaintiffs is that the decree rendered has lost its efficacy and rendered inoperative by way of subsequent compromise alleged to have been entered into between Kahnu and Govind whereby 2/5 share was given vide aforesaid judgment and decree in favour of Kahnu. But then, no such compromise has been placed on record either with the suit or the first appeal or in this appeal. 10. At this stage, Shri Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, would vehemently argue that no doubt the copy of the compromise was not placed on record, however, the factum of such compromise is duly reflected in the copy of mutation No.339 Ex.P-2 attested by A.C. 2nd Grade on 19.03.1972. 11. I find no substance in such submission. As per the mutation, the compromise alleged to have been entered into was oral and was effected in the presence of Dayal Singh, Namberdar, who in fact, identified the parties. However, neither the A.C. 2nd Grade nor said Namberdar has been examined to prove this fact. 12. 11. I find no substance in such submission. As per the mutation, the compromise alleged to have been entered into was oral and was effected in the presence of Dayal Singh, Namberdar, who in fact, identified the parties. However, neither the A.C. 2nd Grade nor said Namberdar has been examined to prove this fact. 12. That apart, it has specifically come on record that the compromise decree Ex.DW1/B has already been executed and possession delivered to the defendants on the spot as per Ex.DW1/C in Execution Petition No.35/10. Now, when the possession already stood delivered on the spot in the year 1970 and the decree Ex.DW1/B stood executed, there really does not seem to be any logic or reason to have executed subsequent compromise in the year 1972. 13. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs can claim no advantage on the basis of the so-called revenue entries. For, it is more than settled that mutation confers no title and is only for physical purpose. 14. It is settled that mutation entries only enable the State to collect revenues from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property and the right, title and interest as to the property should be established dehors the entries. Entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein. (Refer: Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and others vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel and others, (1996) 6 SCC 433 ). 15. This authority in turn was considered by this Court in Param Dev and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 ShimLC 928 : Param Dev and others vs. State of H.P. and others, (2014) 1 LatestHLJ 440, wherein it was observed as under: "7. It is well settled law that mutation does not confer any title. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature and are only for fiscal purpose to determine the land revenue and cannot be considered to be evidence about title. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and others vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel and others, (1996) 6 SCC 433 held as under:- "Mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenues from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property and the right, title and interest as to the property should be established dehors the entries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and others vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel and others, (1996) 6 SCC 433 held as under:- "Mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenues from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property and the right, title and interest as to the property should be established dehors the entries. Entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein" (Para 7). 8. In Smt. Sawarni vs. Smt. Inder kaur and others, (1996) AIR SC 2823, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "7. Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment." Similar reiteration of law can thereafter be found in Rameshwar Dass (deceased) through his Lrs : Subhash Jain and others vs. Dayawanti (deceased) through her LRS: Manoj Bansal and others, (2016) 5 ILR(HP) 847. 16. No other point urged. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.