JUDGMENT : The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit bearing No. 1067/95/91,before the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. Therein they claimed that they are, alongwith performa defendant, one Lehri Ram, hence co-owners in the possession of the suit land. Since in the relevant column of the Jamabandi, for the year 1985-86, one of the defendants, one Lakshman, occurred as “gair marusi” over the suit land. The afore occurrence of one Lakshman, as “gair marusi”, upon the suit land, was in pursuance to an order made on 19.6.1985, by Naib-Tehsildar concerned. Therefore, the plaintiffs contended that the afore made reflection(s) in the relevant column of the apposite Jamabandi, of, Lakshman, as “gair marusi” upon suit khasra Nos, is, an invalid entry. Consequently, they prayed for the making a declaratory decree, for the quashing of the afore entry of Lakshman, in the revenue record, as “gair marusi” over the suit khasra Nos. The afore suit became dismissed, by the learned trial Judge, through its verdict, recorded on 11.01.2002. The dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit, by the learned Sub-Judge concerned, was appealed by the aggrieved plaintiffs, before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court, upon Civil Appeal bearing No. RBT 7/04/02, through its decision made thereon on 10.1.2008, rather made a verdict of dismissal, and, obviously maintained, and, affirmed the verdict (supra) of the learned sub-judge concerned. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the learned Courts below, strived to impugn them, through theirs rearing the extant appeal, before this Court. When the instant appeal, came for hearing, before this Court, the same was admitted on 25.5.2011 on the hereinafter substantial questions of law. “Whether the Courts below have mis-construed and mis-interpreted the oral and documentary evidence more particularly Ext. PB, dated 19.6.1985 in dismissing the suit of the appellants?” 2. The questioned revenue entries, occurring in the relevant records, would be concluded to be invalidly made, only upon evidence surging forth, and, its making vivid displays, that the earlier thereto entries, carried in the revenue records, rather being invalid as well as void. Moreover, if the questioned revenue entries, as occurring in the revenue record, are stray entries, and/or are not supported by any valid order, hence made by the empowered Revenue Officer concerned, thereupon they would loose their validity, and, legal solemnity. 3. However, a perusal of Ext. Moreover, if the questioned revenue entries, as occurring in the revenue record, are stray entries, and/or are not supported by any valid order, hence made by the empowered Revenue Officer concerned, thereupon they would loose their validity, and, legal solemnity. 3. However, a perusal of Ext. A-1, exhibit whereof is the copy of Jamabandi, for the year 1966-67, discloses that the suit land, became owned by one Kehar Singh, and, one Lakshman was recorded as “gair marusi”,upon the suit land. However, in the Jamabandi, subsequent to the year 1966-67, the name of Lakshaman as, a “gair marusi” over the suit land, did abruptly disappear. Consequently, an inquiry became launched by the Naib-Tehsildar concerned, and, it resulted in a finding, that the abrupt disappearance of the name of one Lakshman, as a “gair marusi, upon the suit land, hence in the Jamabandi(s) subsequent to the Jamabandi for the year 1966-67, hence was amenable to correction. The afore factum, became recorded in Ext. D-1, Exhibit whereof is Jamabandi for the year 1971-72. 4. The plaintiffs’ case would hold validity, in case they are able to establish, that the initial occurrence of the name of Lakshman, as a gair marusi, in the relevant column of Jamabandi, for the year 1966-67, was fallible, inasmuch as, its occurrence therein, being not founded, upon any tangible material, disclosing rather that he had been not paying rent in cash or in kind to the land owners concerned. However, the afore evidence is not existing on record. Consequently, despite the valid occurrence of the name of one Lakshman, in the Jamabandi, appertaining to the suit land, for the year 1966-67, as a “gair marusi” over the suit land, yet his name rather disappearing from the subsequent thereto jamabandies, does visibly boosts an inference, qua the apposite abrupt disappearance, being susceptible to a grave legal fallacy. Conspicously since the Naib Tehsildar formed an opinion, that the afore disappearance, was fallible, and, with no evidence becoming adduced, that the inquiry, as became launched by Naib-Tehsildar concerned, for determining the efficacy of the deletion of the name of Lakshman, in the relevant column of Jamabandi, subsequent to the jamabandi, for the year 1966-67, hence as “gair marusi”, hence was faulty, inasmuch as the then land owners evidently not participating in the relevant proceedings. However, the afore evidence is wanting. However, the afore evidence is wanting. Therefore, this Court concludes that the suit for declaration, as filed by the plaintiff, for quashing the entries in the Jamabandi concerned, wherein, one Lakshman, is shown as “gair marusi, vis-à-vis, the suit khasra Nos, was amenable for dismissal, as aptly done by both the learned Courts below. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the defendants, and, against the plaintiffs. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgments and decrees, as passed by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No costs.