Sureshwar Thakur, J.
1.The instant appeal stands directed against the concurrently recorded judgments and decrees by both learned Courts below, whereby, they decreed
the suit of the plaintiffs, wherein, they claimed a decree for declaration and consequential relief of injunction with respect to the suit land being
pronounced upon the defendants. In sequel thereto, the defendants/appellants herein are driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff are owners of the land measuring 23 kanals 18 marlas bearing Khewat No.374, 375, 375/1,
Khatauni No.483, 484, 485, Khasra Nos. 1285, 1287, 1329, 1330, 1332, 1384, 1286, 1327 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1983-1984, situated
in Village Rampur, H.B. No.209, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. The defendants in connivance with the revenue staff procured a false and frivolous
entry showing themselves to be tenant at will since Rabi 1976 at the back of the plaintiffs. Since, the plaintiffs are in the continuous physical
possession of the suit land this entry has no effect on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. The defendants are threatening to interference in the
suit land on the basis of the wrong entry. Hence this suit.
3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia cause of action,
maintainability, bar to try the suit and limitation. On merits, the defendants have alleged that they are coming in possession of the suit land as tenants
for the last about 35 years on payment of Chakota Saal Tamam of Rs.15/- and the entries in revenue record were coming earlier against the spot
situation which were entered int the names of defendants on 2.11.1975 qua the land of Khasra No.1384 and on 26.4.1976 qua the land of khasra
No.1332 at the time of Khasra Girdawari in the presence of the village Pradhan and other right holders. The entire suit land is owned and possessed
by defendant No.3 as Smt. Rattan Kaur who was having 1/7 share in the ownership has  also died and after the passing of The H.P. Tenancy and
Land Reforms Act, defendant No.3 has become owner of the suit land vide mutation No.2959. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land?OPP.
2. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit, as alleged/OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD.
5. Whether the defendants were tenants over the suit land and have become owners after the enforcement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms
Act, as alleged?OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts and conduct to file this suit?OPD
7. Whether the suit is barred by time?OPD.
8. Relief.
5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In
an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendants/appellants before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.
6. Now the defendants/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 24.04.2007, this Court, admitted
the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter
extracted substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether the issue regarding limitation has been wrongly and illegally decided by the Courts below?
2. Whether the courts below have wrongly and illegally decided the issue regarding jurisdiction?
Substantial question of Law No.1 &2.
7. Prior to the contested reflections occurring in Ex.P-2 and in Ex.P-3, exhibit(s) whereof respectively comprise a copy of khasra Girdawari
appertaining to the year 1974 to 1979 and a copy of jamabandi appertaining to the year 1975-1976, the plaintiffs were continuously reflected in the
apposite revenue records to be owners of the suit khasra numbers. Since at the time contemporaneous to the making of Ex.P-2 in the year 1974, the
provisions of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act came into force, whereunder non occupancy tenants were bestowed with
automatic vestment of proprietary rights upon the suit land, thereupon under mutations respectively comprised in Ex. D-5 and in Ex. D-6, the
defendants were conferred proprietary rights upon the suit land. The plaintiffs' on the score of theirs being void ab initio hence instituted the instant suit
for ripping apart their tenacity. Apparently, as aforestated the revenue records prior to the making of all the aforesaid contested exhibits, make a
graphic depiction therein in respect of the plaintiffs being reflected therein to be owners in possession of the suit land. However, all the aforesaid
reflections borne therein would stand eroded of their tenacity, if all the subsequent contested entries recorded in the contentious exhibits aforesaid,
stand proven by cogent evidence to be recorded therein, in accordance with law or if formidable evidence makes evincings of the authorities
concerned in making entries in all the aforesaid contested exhibits, theirs adhering to the procedure prescribed by law besides also no infraction
standing begotten of the principles of natural justice. In case the aforesaid evidence is amiss, thereupon, with the revenue entries existing in the
relevant records prior to coming into being of the contested entries, hence enjoying a statutory presumption of truth, they would thereupon acquire
conclusivity, rendering worthless any espousal of the defendants that they hold no tenacity or are uncreditworthy. Contentious exhibits P-2 and Ex. D-
1 stood prepared subsequent to 1973 whereupto the plaintiffs were recorded in the apposite revenue records, to be owners in possession of the suit
land. Ex. P-2 comprises a copy of the khasra girdawari appertaining to the suit land, in respect of years 1974-1979, wherein, the defendants are shown
to be tenants over the suit land, reflections whereof sequelled recording of mutations respectively comprised in Ex.D-5 and in Ex. D-6, whereunder,
proprietary rights in respect of the suit land stood conferred upon the defendants. The aforesaid exhibits borne on Ex. P-2 and on Ex. D-1, for hence
withstanding the test of legal scanning, Â ere enjoined to,from the record contemporaneous to their preparation, unravel of the Patwari concerned in
preparing them, had prior thereto ensured that compliance(s) by all concerned stood meted vis-a-vis the mandated procedure prescribed under
clause 9.8, page 197 of the H.P. Land Records Manual, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, whereupon alone the relevantÂ
contentious entries would   acquire solemnity also would hence efficaciously rebut the efficacy of entries borne in the prior thereto revenue
records :- “The crops will be entered in the khasra girdwari, as the inspection proceeds, in the column provided for the purpose. The change in
rights, rents and possession will be noted in the appropriate column in pencil. And, where the boundaries or area of a field have changed in such a
manner as to require a correction of the field map, the patwari will make a rough measurement, sufficient for the crop entries. All changes in rights,
rents and possession shall be recorded by the Patwari in pencil and by putting a cross in pencil in column 12, 16, 20, 24 and 28 of khasra girdawari in
accordance with Govt. instructions issues vide letter No. 10-5/73-II, dated 4.9.1980. As per these instructions, the Patwari will give information of
such changes to the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar as the case may be. The Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar will inquire and give reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the parties. The inquiry should be completed within three months and the entires will be made in Khasra girdawari according to the orders
passed by the Revenue Officers after entering in his diary.†In the afore-extracted provisions of  lause 9.8 occurring at page 197 of the H.P. Land
Records Manual, a peremptory mandate is cast upon the Revenue Officer concerned, to before permitting incorporation in the relevant record(s), any
change(s) Â in respect of the person(s) cultivating the suit property, theirs making an inquiry, during course whereof, a reasonable opportunity is
evidently afforded to all the aggrieved vis-a- vis the change(s) being ultimately ordered to be incorporated in the apposite revenue records. The
relevant revenue records contemporaneous to the preparation of contested Ex. P-2 and Ex.D-1, holding therein all the aforesaid evincings, are neither
existing hereat nor obviously any echoings occur therein in respect of the Revenue Officers concerned begetting compliance therewith, comprised in
theirs prior to theirs ordering for the apposite change(s) being made with respect to the suit land, theirs holding an in-depth inquiry, during course
whereof, a reasonable opportunity of being heard stood afforded to the aggrieved. Absence of apt records contemporaneous to the making of the
apposite contested subsequently prepared revenue records with occurrence(s) therein of the aforesaid bespeakings, renders any incorporation in any
record (s) of any entry reflective of the defendants holding possession of the suit land, in the capacity of theirs being tenants under the plaintiffs, to be
hence wanting in legal sanctity. In aftermath, infraction of the mandatory procedure held in the aforestated canons existing in the H.P. Land Records
Manual, renders the relevant contentious incorporation(s) aforesaid therein being construable to be void ab initio also renders the attestation(s)
subsequent thereto, of mutations, respectively comprised in Ex. D-5 and D-6, whereunder proprietary rights stood conferred upon the defendants,
being likewise construable to stand ingrained with a gross infirmity. The further concomitant effect of the aforesaid inference, is that the presumption
of truth enjoyed by contested Exts. P-2, Ex.D-1, Ex. D-2, Ex.-3, Ex.D-4, Ex. D-5 and Ex. D-6 stands eroded. Contrarily, the presumption of truth
enjoyed by the apt revenue records prepared prior to 1974, wherein, the plaintiffs are reflected to be owners in possession of the suit land, can tenably
be imputed a sacrosanct aura of validity.
8. The aforesaid inference(s) apparently fall within the ambit of exceptions carved out by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in a case titled as
Chuhniya Devi versus Jindhu Ram, 1991(2) S.L.J. 1082, vis-a-vis the ouster of jurisdiction of civil Courts in respect of matters falling within the
domain of Section 112 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, exceptions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “64.
…............................................
(a) that an order made by the competent authority under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, is open to challenge before a civil court to the extent that
it relates to matters falling within the ambit of section 37(3) and section 46 of the Act; and
(b) the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietary rights under section 104 of the H.P.
Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in
conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with.â€
9. Conspicuously, also when within the ambit of the afore extracted relevant portion of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in
Chhuhniya Devi's case (supra), the preparation of the contested exhibits aforestated is evidently stained with a vice of theirs infracting the statutory
mandate of the afore extracted provisions held in the Himachal Pradesh Records Manual, thereupon, with the apt statutory procedure being evidently
infracted also with the principles of natural justice being also transgressed, concomitantly renders both the aforesaid contested exhibits to be nonest
besides fillips an inevitable inference of the Civil Court concerned holding within the ambit of Section 37(3) and of Section 46 of the H.P. Tenancy and
Land Reforms Act, 1972, the apposite jurisdiction to test the legality of all the aforesaid contested exhibits also its holding jurisdiction to test the legality
of the reflections inconsonance therewith occurring in the revenue records prepared by the Revenue Officer(s) concerned in respect of the suit
khasra number(s). Moreover, with all the aforesaid contested exhibits, for reasons aforestated, standing stained with an infirmity of theirs respectively
grossly infracting the mandatory statutory provision(s) encapsulated in the H.P. Land Records Manual, thereupon, any reliance placed thereon by the
Revenue Officer(s) concerned, while theirs in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land
Reforms Act, hence proceeding to record mutations comprised in Ex. D-5 and D-6, whereunder proprietary rights in respect of the suit land, stood
conferred upon the defendants, is rendered vitiated, especially when in the proceedings appertaining to the recording of the aforesaid mutation(s), no
bespeakings occur in respect of the Revenue Officer(s) concerned while attesting mutations conferring proprietary rights upon the defendants, theirs
determining the legality of the recording of the aforesaid contested exhibits by the Revenue Officer(s) concerned, besides thereupon with the bedrock
of exhibits D-5 and of Ex. D-6, whereunder proprietary rights in respect of the suit land stood conferred upon the defendants standing, as a natural
sequel thereof hence eroded, concomitant sequel thereof is of the entries incorporated in consonance therewith in the revenue records, also likewise
acquiring stains of vitiation. The effect of the aforesaid discussion, is that the bar of jurisdiction encapsulated in Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy Land
Reforms Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, against any orders or proceedings held under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy Land
Reforms Act, being unquestionable in any Civil Court or before any other authority, being unattractable vis-a-vis the plaintiffs' suit. Provisions of
Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act read as under: “112. Bar of jurisdiction.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this
Chapter, the validity of any proceedings or orders taken or made under this Chapter shall not be called in question in any Civil Court or before any
other authority.â€
10. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in a case
titled as Azhar Hasan and others versus District Judge, Saharanpur and others, (1998)3 SCC 246, wherein it is postulated that any question(s) relating
to conferment of proprietary rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or any question(s) relating to fictitiousness of
execution of any sale deed, falling within the domain and jurisdiction of revenue Courts concerned, rather than within the jurisdiction of Civil Court(s)
concerned, makes an espousal before this Court that the plaintiffs' suit challenging contested exhibits P-2, D-1, D-2, D- 3 and D-4, in sequel whereto,
mutations comprised in Ex. D- 5 and Ex. D-6 stood attested, when thereupon attracts the bar encapsulated in Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and
Lands Reforms Act, hence, warranted its dismissal. However, in making the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
has slighted the effect of the afore extracted binding/conclusive exceptions thereto carved by a Full Bench of this Court, in a verdict pronounced in
Chhuhniya Devi's case (supra) also has slighted the effect of the evidence aforestated, in consonance therewith evidently existing on record, corollary
whereof is that the judgment of this Court pronounced in Chhuhniya Devi's case (supra) hereat acquiring conclusive and binding effect, besides it
holds force vis-a-vis the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Azhar Hasan's case (supra), especially when unlike in Chhuhniya Devi's
case (supra) wherein stand carved certain exceptions to the rigour of the ousting mandate enshrined in Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land
Reforms Act, also with evident satiations upsurging vis-a-vis exceptions carved therein in respect of ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of
“dispute†falling with the domain of Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, thereupon, with an ensuing validatory effect being
bestowed upon the ultimate testing by the Civil Court(s) of the legality of the apposite orders pronounced by the Revenue Officer(s) concerned, while
exercising powers under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, whereas, with no delineations occurring in the judgment supra of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, that the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court concerned with which it stood beset, had alike this Court in Chhuhniya Devi's case
(supra) hence carved exceptions to the rigour of the play thereat of the statutory provisions ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts concerned, for
facilitating the latter to hence test the legality of the statutory orders or proceedings made by the statutory authorities concerned. In aftermath, the
verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Azhar Hasan's case (supra) is both distinguishable besides inapplicable vis-a-vis the factual scenario
available hereat, also is unattractable or inapplicable hereat, conspicuously in the face of the verdict pronounced by this Court in Chhuhniya Devi's
case (supra) wherein the aforesaid exceptions to the relevant jurisdictional ouster of Civil Court(s), garnering enlivened force, in the face of it standing
not shown to be reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants by placing reliance upon verdicts recorded by this Court in cases titled as Brij Bihari Lal versus
Smt. Sarvi Devi and others, 2011(3) Him.L.R. 1515 and Malkiat Singh and another versus Hardial Singh, 1994(Suppl.)Sim.L.C. 77, canvasses that
with no evidence existing on record in portrayal of the exceptions to the rigour of the mandate of Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms
Act, hence, begetting satiation, thereupon with the exceptions engrafted in Chhuhniya Devi's case (supra) not concomitantly begetting compliance
renders per incuriam, the verdict recorded by the learned courts below. However, the aforesaid submission lacks vigour, as the aforesaid discussion
does evidently bring forth the graphic fact of the records contemporaneous to the preparation of contested Ex. P-2, Ex. D-1, Ex. D-2 and of Ext. D-3
in sequel whereto mutations, comprised in Ex. D-5 and in Ex. D-6 stood attested, neither standing adduced on record nor obviously any bespeakings
emanating therein in respect of relevant compliance(s) being meted by the Revenue Officer(s) concerned vis-a- vis the mandate of clause 9.8 of the
H.P. Land Records Manual, also when absence of the aforesaid evidence has visited all the aforesaid contested exhibits with a vice of vitiation
besides with a vice of theirs infracting the principles of natural justice, thereupon, dehors any specific pleadings in respect thereof nor direct evidence
in respect of compliance in respect of exceptions carved in Chhuhniya Devi's case (supra) vis-a-vis the rigour of the ousting mandate held in Section
112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, respectively being not prevalent hereat, rather inferential evidence being prevalent hereat, yet the
vigour of the aforesaid vitiation(s) staining them remains uneffaced.
12. The mutations comprised in Ex. D-5 and Ex.D-6, whereunder proprietary rights qua the suit land stood conferred upon the defendants, stood
attested in the year 1982. Also the suit of the plaintiff assailing the apposite revenue entries/mutations aforesaid, whereby, proprietary rights qua the
suit land stand conferred upon the defendants, stood instituted before the learned trial Court in the year 1991. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants has contended with vigour that the fact “of†the apposite period of limitation warranting attraction hereat, for hence the declaratory suit
of the plaintiff claiming a decree that all contested entries/orders be quashed and set aside, being construable to fall within the apposite statutorily
enjoined period of limitation, standing, comprised in the provisions of Article 100 of the Limitation Act, wherein, a period of three years stands
prescribed, period whereof commencing since the conferment of proprietary rights qua the suit land upon the defendants under contentious order(s)
made by the Authority(ies) concerned, whereas, with the suit of the plaintiffs standing instituted inordinately, therefrom, hence, much beyond the
aforesaid apposite period of limitation, thereupon, the suit of the plaintiff being barred by limitation. However, the aforesaid submission addressed
before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants lacks vigour, as evidently the apposite entries qua conferment of proprietary
rights upon the defendants qua the suit land exist much prior to the filing of the suit or say in the year 1982, yet thereupon, the mere factum of their
existence thereat would not thereat engender any cause of action, vis-a-vis the aggrieved plaintiff, nor thereupon the belatedly therefrom instituted suit
of the aggrieved plaintiff, attracts the bar of limitation nor hence the date of attestation of the relevant mutations, comprise(s) the commencement of
accrual of cause of action vis-a-vis the aggrieved, rather the commencement of the period of limitation prescribed therein stands engendered “onâ€
occurrence of rearing(s) of cause of action(s) vis-a-vis the aggrieved plaintiffs, “occurrences whereofâ€, taking place in contemporaneity of
evident threatenings, for dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land being meted by the defendants, especially when thereby they concerted to
enforce the apposite orders. Moreover, the period qua limitation commences when the right to sue accrues, nowat in the instant case the said right to
sue, evidently accruing to the plaintiffs in the year 1991, whereat the defendants threatened to forcibly dispossess them from the suit land, also hence
concerted to enforce the contentious orders, on accrual whereof the suit standing promptly instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants, renders it
to fall within limitation, significantly when thereat the contentious orders were concerted to be enforced.
13. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court are
based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the
learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are answered
in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/appellants.
14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgments and decrees are
maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.
