JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land, as, entered in Khata No.32, min, Khatoni No.90, Khasra No.963, measuring 0-02-08 hectares and land in khasra No.962, measuring 0-07-31 hectares as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98 situated at Mohal, mauza and Tehsil Baijnath, (i) and that the entry in the revenue record showing “Rasta Share Aam” of three meters witidth in Khasra No.963, (ii) and, entry in red line in the Aks Sazra wherein 27 meters passage, in length has been shown to be passing, through, khasra No.962, are, entirely illegal and contrary to the factual position as existing on the spot, (iii) and, further that the order of 26.2.1983, and, of 2.6.1983 passed by the Settlement Officer in Case Nos. 14/83/SO, and, 14/83/SO, and, order of 31.3.1983, passed by the Divisional Commissioner are entirely illegal, and, without jurisdiction, and, having been passed, during, the pendency of the civil proceedings instituted by the plaintiff appertaining to the suit land, (iv) and other land and as such these orders are not at all binding on the plaintiff,(v) and that the subsequent mutation attested and sanctioned by the revenue officers on the basis of above illegal orders, are, illegal and liable to be set aside, (vi) as also, for rendition of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit khasra numbers, (vii) stood decreed by the learned trial court, (viii) and, the learned trial Court also passed a declaratory decree to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, and, that the orders passed by the settlement officers of 26.2.1983, and, of 2.6.1983, (ix) and, order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 31.3.1983, and, mutations attested on the basis of these orders, where through, entries in the revenue record were made, by showing Rasta Share-aam in Khasra No.963, and, entry in red line in Aks Shajra shown to be passing, through, Khasra No.962, (x) are illegal and null, and, void, (xi) and, the plaintiffs' suit, stood, also for, rendition, of ,a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction hence decreed, and, the defendants were permanently restrained from interfering in the suit land, by way of digging. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the defendants before the learned First Appellate Court, the, latter rather Court allowed the appeal, and, set aside, the, judgment and decree recorded by the learned trial Court, (xi) with the rider that the findings, recorded by the learned trial court, that, there exists a path in the suit land, and, the defendants have right to use the same hence not warranting any interference. The plaintiff/appellants herein are aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff (now deceased) and the entry in the column of possession recorded as “shar-e-aam” in Khasra No.963 and red line entry reflected to the extent of 27 meters in length in Aks Sajra and Latha over Khasra No.962 have been managed and manipulated by the defendants in connivance with the Settlement Authorities behind the back of the plaintiff which are illegal and void. The plaintiff had filed Civil Suit on 26.09.1970 against Jagdish Raj and others which was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class on 22.12.1975 against which judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the District Judge on 30.09.1978. The plaintiff carried a Regular Second Appeal No.7 of 1979 to the High Court and the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by both the learned Courts below and decreed his suit for possession, and on the basis of said judgment and decree the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land other land on 23.09.1994, as a result of which the plaintiff became the owner and came in possession of the entire land comprised in Khasra Nos. 962 and 963 (2101/962/2), including the structure standing thereon and the defendants have nor right, title or interest in the suit land, as they are quite stranger to it. 962 and 963 (2101/962/2), including the structure standing thereon and the defendants have nor right, title or interest in the suit land, as they are quite stranger to it. But, during the pendency of the civil proceedings, the defendants in connivance with the revenue authorities got entries of “shar-e-aam” and red line entry to the extent of 27 meters reflected in Aks Sajra and “latha” over khasra No.962, more particularly in Khasra No.2101/962/2 recorded and manipulated orders dated 26.2.1983, 2.6.1983 passed by the Settlement Officer and order dated 31.3.1983 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, which were passed behind the back of the plaintiff and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff requested the defendants to get the alleged entries corrected and not to make interference in the suit land but without any result and to the contrary they intended to construct a passage over the suit land, as a result of which the plaintiff was compelled to file the extant suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendants No.1, 3 to 6 in their joint written statement have taken preliminary objections qua estoppel, cause of action, maintainability, limitation, res-judicata and jurisdiction. On merits, the defendants termed the averments made in the plaint as wrong and incorrect and pleaded that the suit land is not in possession of the plaintiff, but their exits a passage over the same since long, which is being used by the defendants and public at large since time immemorial as pleaded in para No.8 of the written statement, but the plaintiff while filing the suit, has suppressed the said material fact. The plaintiff was well aware of the correction proceedings remained pending before the Revenue Officers and, as such, the orders passed by the learned Settlement Officer and Divisional Commissioner are valid and legal. Even, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had filed a civil suit in the year 1985 seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the suit land, but the same was dismissed against which the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed and as such, the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata. Even, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had filed a civil suit in the year 1985 seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the suit land, but the same was dismissed against which the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed and as such, the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata. It was further pleaded that the decree passed by the High Court has not effect on the rights of the defendants regarding use of passage in the suit land, because the passage is existing on the spot for the last more than 30 years and since time immemorial, which is being used by the defendant and public at large and, as such, the defendants never threatened to demolish any building of the plaintiff and nor made any interference except using of path existing in the suit land and to the contrary the plaintiff is trying to block the same and, on the absis of such averments, the said defendants claimed dismissal of the suit. 4. Defendant No.2 in his written statement denied the correctness of the averments made in the plaint for want of knowledge and pleaded that there exists no passage in the revenue record and the passage was being used with the permission and consent of Jagdish Raj and others and it is submitted that he has no objection in case the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed. 5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement(s) of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement(s) and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the orders dated 26.2.83 and 2.6.83 passed by Settlement Officer in case NO. 14/83/S.O and 14/83/S.O., are illegal and liable to be set aside, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the order dated 31.3.1983 passed by the Divisional Commissioner is illegal and liable to be set aside, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the mutations sanctioned on the basis of orders passed by S.O. and Divisional Commissioner are liable to be set aside, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 6. OPP. 4. Whether the mutations sanctioned on the basis of orders passed by S.O. and Divisional Commissioner are liable to be set aside, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is barred by period of limitation, as alleged? OPD. 10. Whether the suit is barred by principles of res-judicata, as alleged? OPD. 11. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC, as alleged? OPD. 12. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit, as alleged? OPD 13. Whether there exits a public passage in the suit land, if so, its effect? OPD. 14. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 15. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the defendants No.1, 3 to 6/respondents herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed, the, appeal, and, reverse the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, except, the findings qua, the, passage existing on the suit land. 8. Now the plaintiffs/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 26.03.2008, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the entries of alleged corrections made in the revenue records by the Revenue Officers behind the back of the appellants with respect to Khasra No.962 and 963 during the pendney of Regular Second Appeal No. 7/79 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh could affect or impinge the rights of the appellant in the suit property and whether the defendants could take any benefit of such entries so as to defeat the rights of the appellants in the suit property? 2. Whether the rights of the appellants with respect to the suit property comprising Khasra No.962 and 963 were protected by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 under the doctrine of Lis pendens? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 9. The defendants had espoused qua theirs acquiring an easementary right, for, trudging upon the suit khasra numbers. The afore plea stood vindicated, by the learned First Appellate Court, by its, placing reliance upon Ex.PW5/A, wherein clear articulations rather occur, qua a passage, existing on Khasra No.963. The afore disclosures hence occurring in Ex.PW5/A, do not suffer, from any fallibility, vis-a-vis, their probative sanctity, espeically for want of any potent thereto rebuttal evidence, hence, being adduced by the plaintiff. The learned First Appellate Court, also did not place, any reliance upon, a, judgement embodied, in Ex.P-7, judgment whereof though appertains to the suit land, (i) on anvil, of, the, defendants hence uncontestedly rather standing not arrayed as party(ies) therein nor the controversy therein appertaining to the path, borne in Khasra No.963, hence standing adjudicated thereunder. The afore reason, obviously is neither fallacious nor suffers from any infirmity. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, would succeed, in his endeavour qua the verdict, hence, nullfying the orders borne in Ex. P8, D-4, D-5, D-6, as, rendered by the learned trial Court, requiring no interference, by the learned First Appellate Court, (a) upon, his alluding to evidence hence making disclosures qua the reflections in Ex.PW5/A, wanting in legality given theirs being not preceded rather by any validly made orders. However, when the afore apposite submission, is rested merely, upon the fact that the afore orders, rather stood pronounced by the authorities concerned, despite, pendency, of, regular second appeal bearing No. 7 of 1979 before this Court, (b) and, also when he hence submits, that, all the afore orders, hence, acquiring the requisite vitiatory effect, also on anvil, of theirs obviously inviting the wrath, of, the mandate, as, enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the afore submission also falters, (c) given the learned counsel for the appellants, failing to establish, that in RSA No 7 of 1979, the defendants standing arrayed, in, the apposite array of the legal combatants, (d) rather when uncontestedly, the defendants/respondent hereat remained unarrayed in the afore second appeal, in, the apposite array of legal combatants, thereupon, reiteratedly the force, if any, of the afore contention rather loses all its vigour. 10. Be that as it may, even if, the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, dehors, the afore infirmity gripping his submission, in, his effort, to, nullify the afore orders, he could yet succeed by placing on record, the, relevant evidence, (a) hence, making vivid displays qua the occurrence, of, the entries in the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, and, with clear echoings therein, qua the suit khasra numbers being reflected as “Shar-e-aam Rasta”, rather coming under a cloud, (b) vitiation whereof being spurred, by the orders made by the authorities concerned, for incorporating the afore entries, in the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, rather being void, and, nonest, given all, the, prior thereto entries, not, making the afore reflections. However, the relevant orders came to be pronounced, hence, respectively in the years 1983, and, in 1985, and, stood embodied respectively, in Ex. D-4, D-5, and, in D-6, and, with all the afore orders standing, relied upon, by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Palampur, for his making a judgment, and, decree, as, embodied in Ex. D-10, (c) and, with the successor-in-interest of Ajudhia Dass, wherefrom the plaintiff hence acquired the apposite title, rather failing, to, in the earlier suit in respect whereof Ex.P-10 stood pronounced, hence cast a challenge thereon, (d) thereupon, all the afore failures, on the part of the alienor of the plaintiff also estops, the latter to contest, the, validity of the orders, as, embodied in Ex.D-4 to D-6. In sequel, the judgment and decree pronounced, in Ex.P-10, hence, acquires conclusivity, and, in consonance therewith, all entries, as, find reflections, in the jamabandis, qua the suit land, wherein reflections, rather occur qua, a, “shar-e-aam Rasta” existing on a part of the suit land, also hence acquire an alike validity. In sequel, the judgment and decree pronounced, in Ex.P-10, hence, acquires conclusivity, and, in consonance therewith, all entries, as, find reflections, in the jamabandis, qua the suit land, wherein reflections, rather occur qua, a, “shar-e-aam Rasta” existing on a part of the suit land, also hence acquire an alike validity. Dehors the above, even prior to the recording of the afore orders, the land comprised in khasra No. 1963, as, pronounced by Ex.P-4, exhibits whereof comprises, the, copy of apt missal hakiyat, for the year 1972-73, hence, stand described, as, “Shar-e-aam Rasta”, (e) and, the afore entries continued, to be reflected in apposite subsequent thereto revenue record(s). Since, all the afore entries appear to be substituted, by an order, made by the settlement Officer, upon, case No.744/SO, on 10.11.1979, where through, the land borne in khasra number 963, was ordered, to be recorded in possession of Sunial Datt and Smt. Geeta Devi, along with Jagdish Ram in equal shares, and, in consonance therewith reflections, were, carried in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1987-88, borne in Ex.P-5, (f) contrarily, hence, the reflections, borne, in the jamabandi appertaining to the year 1987-88, where through, the earlier entries embodied in Ex.P-4, exhibit whereof, comprise, the, jamabandi for the year 1972-73, rather, were, substituted, hence appear to be made, in a slip shod manner, and, without application of mind, (g) significantly when the earlier existing revenue entries appear to be incorporated, by a valid order, especially when no evidence qua preceding therewith no valid order being recorded, rather exists on record. Furthermore, when the afore corrections were made, during, the pendnecy of the civil suit No. 477 of 1974, upon, which judgment, and, decree, as, embodied in Ex.P-9, stood pronounced, hence rather the apposite corrections, and, substitution, inter se, the reflections in EX.P-5, vis-a-vis, a validly made, Ex.P-4, latter whereof comprises, the copy of missal hakiyat for the year 1972-1973, are, all rather hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, and, are required to be discountenanced, as aptly done, by the learned first appellate Court. 11. The above discussion, unfolds, 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. 11. The above discussion, unfolds, 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. Accordingly, the substantial questions, of law are answered in favour of the defendants/respondents, and, against the appellants/plaintiff(s). 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 153-B/XIII/2002 is on all fronts maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.