Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 451 (HP)

Dile Ram v. Khub Ram (since Deceased)

2020-07-20

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this appeal, appellants herein lay challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No.II, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No.264/99/95, decided on 25.03.2002, titled as Khub Ram & others Versus Dile Ram alias Mangi & another, whereby learned Court below decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction, and also the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.59 of 2002, titled as Dile Ram & another Versus Khub Ram and others, dated 31.08.2004, vide which learned Appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, dismissed the appeal filed against the respondents by the present appellants. 2. This appeal was admitted on 06.12.2004, on the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred, in the facts and circumstances of this case, under Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971? (2) Whether the findings of the Courts below are dehors the pleadings and evidence on record?" 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction as a consequential relief against the appellants herein, on the ground that the land comprised in khewat No.48, khatauni Nos. 117 to 121, kitas 98, measuring 26-4-2 bighas, situated in Muhal Dhiun, Hadbast No.49, Illaqua Tungal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh was recorded in the ownership of Kirpal Singh etc. and under the possession of defendants as purchaser of the share of Lal Singh (deceased), Dharam Chand and Hirda. There was a note in red ink with regard to death of Inder Singh (owner), whose property was inherited by Kusam Kumari by way of a Will. Similarly, property of Dhani Ram (deceased) was shown to have been inherited by his legal representatives. As per the plaintiffs, said entries were prima facie wrong, null and void and against the factual position at the spot as plaintiffs were owners in possession qua half share of the suit land. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that previously the suit land was recorded in khewat No.6, khatauni Nos. As per the plaintiffs, said entries were prima facie wrong, null and void and against the factual position at the spot as plaintiffs were owners in possession qua half share of the suit land. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that previously the suit land was recorded in khewat No.6, khatauni Nos. 11 to 16, kitas 98, measuring 26-4-3 bighas, situated in Mouja Dhiun, Hadbast No.49, Illaqua Tungal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh under the ownership of Lal Singh, Bherav Singh and Inder Singh and under the possession of defendants as purchasers of share of Lal Singh, Titlu one share, Dharam Singh, Hirda one share, Chamari one share, Khub Ram and Dhani Ram six shares (half share of the suit land). There were only eight shares of the suit land, out of which deceased Lal Singh owned three shares and deceased Bharav Singh owned one share. Deceased Inder Singh was the owner of four shares. Defendants Titlu, Dharam Chand, Hirda, Chamari, Dhani Ram and Khub Ram had purchased shares of Lal Singh and become tenants under him and Khub Ram and Dhani Ram were recorded tenants of six shares of the suit land. Dharam Chand and Hirda were recorded tenants to the extent of one share and Titlu was shown tenant to the extent of one share and Smt. Chamari was shown tenant to the extent of one share. In order to grab the property of the plaintiffs, defendants in collusion with the Revenue Officials, entered Mutation No.10 dated 31.05.1965 in their name on the pretext that Khub Ram and others had relinquished/ abandoned their rights in favour of the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, these mutation entries were wrong, null and void as no such relinquishment or abandonment was made by Dhani Ram and Khub Ram. Plaintiffs were owners in possession of one half share of the suit land and entries to the contrary after 31.05.1965 were wrong, null and void and not binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. Patwari of the Settlement Department was residing in the house of the defendants and Mutation No.10, dated 31.05.1965 was a result of mischief committed by the defendants in collusion with the said Patwari. Patwari of the Settlement Department was residing in the house of the defendants and Mutation No.10, dated 31.05.1965 was a result of mischief committed by the defendants in collusion with the said Patwari. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that they were not having knowledge of the said wrong entries and came to know about them recent to the time of filing of the suit when Consolidation Operation started in the concerned Muhal. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that taking advantage of the said entries, defendants were bent upon to change the nature of the suit property and were cutting and removing valuable trees situated thereupon and to dispossess the plaintiffs. It was in this background that the suit stood filed by the plaintiffs, seeking declaration to the effect that Mutation No.10, dated 31.05.1965 and entries incorporated thereafter as a result of the said mutation, were null and void, wrong and inoperative and not binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and also for a decree for restraining defendants permanently from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from cutting the trees and changing the nature of the suit land in any manner. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendants, who inter alia took the stand that plaintiffs were in possession of 3-0-15 bighas of the suit land, whereas the remaining suit land measuring 23-3-8 bighas was in the possession of the defendants. They were the owners in possession of the suit land and were cultivating the suit land peacefully without any interference since 1958-59, when they had purchased the share of Lal Singh, who was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. According to the defendants, they had purchased the suit land as a whole from Lal Singh and neither plaintiffs nor any other person had purchased the same. According to the defendants, they had purchased the suit land as a whole from Lal Singh and neither plaintiffs nor any other person had purchased the same. It was further the stand of the defendants that plaintiffs had voluntarily relinquished their rights upon the suit land before Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on 31.05.1965 and Mutation No.10 was duly attested in favour of the defendants on the said date in lieu of land comprised in khewat/ khatauni No.613 (old), and 48/120 (present), kita-13, measuring 2-14-5 bighas as well as khatauni No.6/15 min (old) and 48/121 (present), khasra No.873, measuring 0-6-10 bighas, total measuring 3-0-15 bighas and Mutation No.11 to this effect was attested on the same day i.e. 31.05.1965 and plaintiffs as well as defendants had mutually relinquished their rights in the suit land in favour of each other. It was further mentioned in the written statement that plaintiffs had filed an application against the defendants under Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, which stood dismissed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants on 01.03.1962. Defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that they were neither owners nor in possession of the suit land except khata khatauni No. 6/13 (old) and 48/120 (present), kita 13 and khata khatauni No.6/15 (old) and 48/121 (present). 5. By way of replication, plaintiffs reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on 07.03.2000, learned Trial Court framed following issues for the purpose of adjudication of the suit:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the revenue entries contrary to this are wrong and illegal, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the mutation No.10 dated 31.5.1965 has been wrongly attested, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD. OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD. 7-A. Whether the defendants have relinquished their ownership rights in favour of the plaintiffs in land comprised under khata and khatauni No.6/13 and 6/15, measuring 3-015 bighas vide mutation No.11 in lieu of occupancy rights in the land given by the plaintiffs vide mutation No.10 dated 31-5-1965 as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief". 7. Learned Court below returned the following findings on the issues which were framed for the purpose of the adjudication of the suit:- "Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : Yes. Issue No.3 : Yes. Issue No.4 : No. Issue No.5 : No. Issue No.6 : No. Issue No.7 : Yes Issue No.7-A : No. Issue No.8 : The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed as per operative part of judgment". 8. While allowing the suit, learned Trial Court held that in the original written statement filed by the defendants, the stand taken was that they were in possession of the entire suit land since the year 1958-59. Thereafter, amendment was sought by the defendants in the written statement and in the amended written statement, it was pleaded by the defendants that they were in possession of the suit property to the extent of 23-3-8 bighas of land and rest of the suit land measuring 3- 0-15 bighas was in possession of the plaintiffs. Learned Trial Court held that DW-1 deposed in the Court that he alongwith defendant No.2 had purchased the suit land from Lal Singh in the year 1958 and that plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition which was dismissed and subsequently there was a compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, as a result of which 3 bighas of the suit land was given to the plaintiffs by the defendants. It held that a scrutiny of the written statement (original as well as amended) filed by the defendants demonstrated that there was no pleading to the effect that 3 bighas of land from the suit land was given to the plaintiffs by the defendants in lieu of a compromise nor there was any mention that any compromise was effected when the application for partition was dismissed against the plaintiffs. Learned Trial Court also held that during the cross-examination of PW-1, defendants had suggested that they were in possession of the entire suit land. On these basis, it held that defendants had taken different and conflicting stands with regard to the alleged possession over the suit land on different occasions. It also held that the evidence which was led by the plaintiffs with regard to their possession was inspiring and convincing as defendants themselves had admitted possession of the plaintiffs to the extent of 3 bighas of land. Learned Court held that statement of PW-2 Nota Ram proved that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land alongwith defendants to the extent of half shares. It also held that defendants had not been able to place on record any cogent and reliable evidence to prove their possession over the suit land to the extent of 23 bighas and even DW-2 Achhar Singh, who was stated to be 'Lumberdar' of the area, did not whisper a single word about the possession of defendants over the suit land. 9. As far as Mutation No.10 dated 31.05.1965 is concerned, learned Trial Court held that it was settled law that Mutations were not documents of title and were prepared as a matter of record by Revenue Authorities only to keep the state of affairs up-to-date in order to realise the land revenue from the persons who were in possession of the land, in whatever capacity they may be in possession. It held that Mutation neither confers any title nor extinguishes any right by relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in titled as Bholi and others Versus Rajinder and others,1998 1 SLJ 557 . As far as revenue record in the shape of jamabandi etc. It held that Mutation neither confers any title nor extinguishes any right by relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in titled as Bholi and others Versus Rajinder and others,1998 1 SLJ 557 . As far as revenue record in the shape of jamabandi etc. placed on record by the defendants are concerned, learned Trial Court held that the basis of the said entries was Mutation No.10 dated 31.05.1965 and therefore, no credence could be attached to these revenue entries as plaintiffs by way of cogent and reliable evidence had rebutted said revenue entries quite successfully. Learned Court also held that judgment Ext.PW5/A and Compromise Deed Ext.PW5/B had overriding effect on Mutation No.10 dated 31.05.1965 as it appeared that plaintiffs came into cultivating possession of the suit property to the extent of half share as occupancy tenants alongwith defendants on the basis of said documents. 10. Learned Trial Court held that it had no reason to disbelieve or discard either Ext.PW5/A or Ext.PW5/B, as judgment Ext.PW5/A stood passed on the basis of compromise Ext.PW5/B, by the Court of learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and perusal of the said documents demonstrated that there was some execution pending between the parties in the Court of learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., which stood dismissed as withdrawn as possession of the suit land was handed over to the Decree Holders (plaintiffs). Learned Court also held that Ext.PW5/C demonstrated that Execution Petition was dismissed on 01.07.1965 on the basis of statement of learned counsel of the Decree Holder and on the basis of statement of defendant No.1 Dile Ram. On these basis, it held that Mutation No.10 dated, 31.05.1965, stood rebutted and falsified in view of Ext.PW5/C as also Ext.PW5/D, because it was beyond comprehension as to why plaintiffs would have preferred Execution Petition against defendants, had they relinquished rights in favour of plaintiffs. Learned Trial Court also held that as far as Mutation No.11, dated 31.05.1965 Ext.DB was concerned, defendant No.1 had admitted that plaintiff No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of other plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land to the extent of 3-0-15 bighas, comprised in khewat Nos. Learned Trial Court also held that as far as Mutation No.11, dated 31.05.1965 Ext.DB was concerned, defendant No.1 had admitted that plaintiff No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of other plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land to the extent of 3-0-15 bighas, comprised in khewat Nos. 6/13 and 6/15 and in the absence of any suggestion being put to PW-1, i.e. plaintiff No.1 that ownership rights pertaining to land measuring 3-0-15 bighas, vide Mutation No.11 were relinquished in his favour by the defendants, said Mutation was of no consequence. It also held that Mutation Nos.10 and 11 were attested on the same day and perusal of Mutation No.11 Ext.DB did not demonstrate that same was attested on account of some compromise so entered into between the parties. Learned Court also held that pleadings to this effect made by the defendants in the amended written statement, were denied by the plaintiffs in the replication that there was any exchange with regard to the suit land between the parties. Learned Court also held that there was no evidence to demonstrate that land measuring 3-0-15 bighas was relinquished by defendants in favour of the plaintiffs as a result of some compromise. 11. On the Issues of cause of action and limitation, learned Trial Court held that the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiffs during the course of Consolidation Proceedings when they received threatening from the defendants about their dispossession from the suit land and not from the date of entries recorded in the record of rights as such entries neither created nor took away any right of the plaintiffs. The suit was thus decreed by learned Trial Court in the following terms:- "In view of my findings on issues No.1 to 7A the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed provided that the plaintiffs shall make good deficiency of court fee within a period of 30 days from today, failing which suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The suit was thus decreed by learned Trial Court in the following terms:- "In view of my findings on issues No.1 to 7A the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed provided that the plaintiffs shall make good deficiency of court fee within a period of 30 days from today, failing which suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The plaintiffs are held to be in cultivating possession of the suit land alongwith the defendants to the extent of 1 /2 share of the suit land comprised in khewat No.48 and khatouni Nos.117, 118, 119, 120 and 121, kitas 98, measuring 26-4-2 bighas, situated in Muihal Dhiun Hadbast No.49, Illaqua Tungal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and the mutation No.10, dated 31.5.1965 is declared null and void and also wrong, inoperative and not binding upon the rights, title and interest of the plaintiffs. The defendants are further restrained from cutting trees and changing the nature of the suit land and also from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land permanently. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File, after due completion, be consigned to the record room". 12. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by the learned Trial Court, defendants preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (i.e. Civil Appeal No.59 of 2002, titled as Dile Ram & another Versus Khub Ram & others), vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2004. While dismissing the appeal, learned Appellate Court held that the unilateral attestation of the Mutations in favour of the defendants in no way detracted the legal weight of Ext.PW5/A, Ext.PW5/B and Ext.PW5/C. Learned Appellate Court also held that it was in full agreement with the judgment of the learned Trial Court as far as appreciation of documents was concerned and even on the adjudication of the Issue of limitation. Learned Appellate Court also held that the judgment passed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction Ext.PW5/A, which was based on the agreement entered into between the parties Ext.PW5/B, could not be ignored and it was evident from Ext.PW5/C that during the pendency of the Execution Petition, the same stood dismissed on the statement made by appellant herein namely Shri Dile Ram that possession of the suit property stood delivered to the plaintiffs. 13. 13. Thus, by reiterating the findings returned by learned Trial Court with regard to Ext.PW5/A to Ext.PW5/C, learned Appellate Court also held that Mutation Nos. 10 and 11 attested on 31.05.1965 were of no consequence and there was no infirmity with the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. 14. Present appeal stands filed by the appellants, feeling aggrieved by the judgments so passed by the learned Courts below. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below as well as the record of the case. 16. This appeal was admitted on 06.12.2004, on the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred, in the facts and circumstances of this case, under Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971? (2) Whether the findings of the courts below are dehors the pleadings and evidence on record?" 17. I will address both the substantial questions of law independently. Substantial Question of Law No.1 "(1)Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred, in the facts and circumstances of this case, under Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971?" 18. The suit filed by the plaintiffs/ defendants before learned Trial Court was for declaration and injunction to the effect that Mutation No.10, dated 31.05.1965 and entries thereafter as a result of the said Mutation qua the suit land be declared null and void, wrong and inoperative and not binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and defendants be restrained permanently from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from cutting trees and changing the nature of the suit land inter alia on the ground that defendants with a malafide intent and in collusion with the revenue officials had entered Mutation No.10, dated 31.05.1965 in their names qua the suit land, whereas they were the owners in possession thereof. The case of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the suit land was partly in possession of the plaintiffs to the extent of 3-0-15 bighas, whereas the remaining suit land measuring 23-3-8 bighas was in the possession of the defendants and plaintiffs had voluntarily relinquished their rights upon the suit land before Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, on 31.05.1965, to which effect Mutation No.10 stood attested. There was no preliminary objection taken in the plaint with regard to the factum of the suit being barred by the provisions of Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, nor any issue in this regard stood framed by learned Trial Court. 19. Perusal of the grounds of appeal taken by the present appellants before learned First Appellate Court also demonstrates that no such plea was taken by the appellants therein and in fact no such plea could have been taken in the grounds of appeal as there was no foundation made in the written statement to the effect that the suit was barred on account of the provisions of Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. 20. Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 provides as under:- "57. Jurisdiction of civil Court barred as regards matters arising under this Act-No person shall institute any suit or other proceedings in any civil court with respect to any matter arising out of the consolidation proceedings or with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application can be filed under the provisions of this Act". 21. The ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as per Section 57 of the Act, supra, is in those matters which arise out of Consolidation Proceedings. Meaning thereby that in the course of Consolidation Proceedings, in case a party is aggrieved by the mode and manner of consolidation, then the course which has to be adopted by the party as is prescribed under the above Act and not by way of approaching the Civil Court by way of a civil suit. Meaning thereby that in the course of Consolidation Proceedings, in case a party is aggrieved by the mode and manner of consolidation, then the course which has to be adopted by the party as is prescribed under the above Act and not by way of approaching the Civil Court by way of a civil suit. Said statutory provision has no application as far as the suit filed by the present respondents is concerned for the simple reason that they were not aggrieved by any Consolidation Proceedings, which stood initiated under the provisions of the 1971 Act, supra. Their grievance was with regard to a Mutation i.e. Mutation No.10, which stood attested on 31.05.1965, at their back and the decree sought by them was to the effect that the said mutation entry was null and void, inoperative and not binding upon them and ineffective as far as their interests were concerned. The mention of Consolidation Proceedings was only to the extent that they came to know about the mutation in issue during the course of Consolidation Proceedings. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not barred by the provisions of Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Substantial Question of Law No.2 "(2) Whether the findings of the courts below are dehors the pleadings and evidence on record?" 22. A perusal of the judgments passed by learned Courts below demonstrates that both the learned Courts below have relied upon Ext.PW5/A to Ext.PW5/C to hold that plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share of the suit land alongwith the defendants and Mutation No.10, dated 31.05.1965, was declared null and void and also wrong, inoperative and not binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. 23. A perusal of the record of the case demonstrates that the findings which have been so returned by both the learned Courts below are not only based on the evidence on record, but same are correct findings as there is neither any misreading nor any misinterpretation of either the pleadings or any evidence on record. Ext.PW5/A is the copy of judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., dated 28.03.1963, in Civil Suit No.246 of 1962, titled as Khub Ram and others Versus Dile Ram and others. Ext.PW5/A is the copy of judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., dated 28.03.1963, in Civil Suit No.246 of 1962, titled as Khub Ram and others Versus Dile Ram and others. The plaintiffs in the above mentioned Civil Suit were Khub Ram son of Palas Ram and Dhani Ram son of Palas Ram. The Civil Suit, out of which the present Regular Second Appeal has arisen, was filed by Khub Ram and the legal representatives of Dhani Ram i.e. plaintiff in the earlier suit referred to hereinabove. The defendants in Civil Suit No.246 of 1962 were Dila Ram alias Mangti, Shobha, both sons of Chamar, alongwith Dharam Chand, Hirda etc. In the subsequent suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, said Dila Ram and Shobha were the defendants. The earlier suit was allowed by learned Trial Court in the following terms:- "The plaintiffs have filed this suit for joint possession in the suit property as occupancy tenants with the defendants No.1 and 2. Defendants No.3 to 6 are proforma as such no relief is claimed against them. Defendants Nos. 4 to 9 are also proforma no relief has also been claimed against them. On 5-3-1963 the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1, 2 and 5 have filed a written compromise before me on which the statements of the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 and defendants No.3, 4 and 5 were recorded by me who have all admitted the correctness of the compromise marked Ext.CA and have asked for a decree in accordance with the compromise Ext.CA in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 and 2. In view of the written compromise Ext.CA, I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for possession of khasra Nos.385, 386, 387, 1132, 445, 143-45 seven kitas, measuring 4-18- 16 bighas and khasra Nos.498, 508, 530, 533, 547, 551, 584, 596, 600, 609, 612, 619, 623, 708, 713, 725, 1403, 442, 456, 466, 474 and 488, twenty three kitas, measuring 5-6-14 bighas against defendants No. 1 and 2, as occupancy tenants. The compromise Ext.CA will also read as part of the decree. The parties will bear their own costs. The be consigned to the record room". 24. The compromise Ext.CA will also read as part of the decree. The parties will bear their own costs. The be consigned to the record room". 24. Ext.Pw5/B is the copy of the Compromise, which stood entered into between the parties to the suit and the same was so entered into between the parties on 05.02.1963. This Compromise was signed by Khub Ram as well as Dhani Ram (plaintiffs) as also Dile Ram and Shobha i.e. the defendants in the said suit. It is on the strength of the contents of the said Compromise that the suit stood decided by learned Court below on 28.03.1963. Ext.PW5/C is the statement which was made by Shri Hari Krishan, learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder in the earlier suit, that the Execution Petition be consigned to the record room on the basis of the statement of Shri Dile Ram i.e. the Judgment Debtor, whose statement was recorded in the Court that the possession of the land subject matter of Ext.PW5/A, stood handed over to the Decree Holders. This is clearly reflected from the contents of Ext.PW5/C, wherein the statement of Dile Ram under his signatures is so recorded. Statement of defendant Dile Ram, who entered the witness box as DW-1, demonstrates that he had stated in the Court that there was a Compromise entered into between the parties and as a result thereof, 3 bighas of land was handed over to the plaintiffs out of 26 bighas and the remaining came to be in the ownership and possession of the defendants and accordingly, Mutation No.10, dated 31.05.1965 was attested to this effect. 25. When one goes through the documents exhibited by the defendants before the learned Court below, perusal thereof demonstrates that there is no Compromise etc. proved on record by the defendants to substantiate that any Compromise was entered into between the defendants and the plaintiffs. 26. Therefore, this Court concurs with the findings returned by both the learned Courts below, that in view of the contents of Ext.PW5/A to Ext.PW5/C, the Mutation which was attested on 31.05.1965 i.e. Mutation No.10, is null and void and neither binding nor operative against the interest of the respondents herein. Findings to this effect returned by both the learned Courts below thus are clearly borne out from the record of the case. Findings to this effect returned by both the learned Courts below thus are clearly borne out from the record of the case. Therefore, there is neither any misreading nor any mis-appreciation of the pleadings or the evidence on record, nor it can be said that the findings returned by both the learned Courts below are dehors the pleadings and evidence on record, because the findings returned by learned Courts below are based upon the evidence on record. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 27. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.