The presumption of truth attached to later revenue entries is rebuttable and can be rebutted by showing that the alterations were made unauthorizedly or mistakenly.

D. P. Sood. J.—This Regular Second Appeal under section 100 (old) of the Civil Procedure Code read with section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated November 25, 1981 of the then learned Additional District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, whereby the trial Courts judgment directing the suit of the plaintiffs to be dismissed, was upheld.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the respondents were tire defendants in the trial Court. Both the parties have been referred to hereinabove as plaintiffs’ and defendants. The bone of contention between the parties is the suit land contained in Khata Khatauni No. 62/127, Khasra No. 638/466 min measuring 15 Kanals 18 Marias (part-1) and Khata Khatauni No. 62/129 Khasra No 638/466 measuring 3 Kanals, besides, Kbasra No 559 measuring 17 Kanals 8 Marias (part-II), as per Jamabandi for the year 1968-69, situate in Tika Bari Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra. Both the defendants were admittedly the tenants of the suit land. The plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for declaration and issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants on the basis of title and possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No. 1 voluntarily relinquished the possession of the suit land, contained in Part-I, in October, 1969, whereas defendant No. 2 relinquished his tenancy rights in their favour in April, 1970. Thus, as per the plaintiffs, they continued to be in cultivating possession of the suit land since the said dates It is then alleged that due to the enforcement of H. P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the defendants on the instigation of some interested persons, started claiming their tenancy rights in the suit land and started interfering in their peaceful possession- Further allegation is that despite requests, both the defendants did not desist from doing so which circumstances ultimately culminated into the filing of the instant civil suit.

3. The contest putforth by both the defendants in their written statement is that they never relinquished their tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff* ; that the latter, in connivance with the Halqua Patwari, got the entries effected in the Revenue record in their favour and manoeuvred the story of voluntary relinquishment with a view to dislodge the defendants from actual self cultivating possession of the suit land. Both the defendants also raised preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the suit, estoppel and mis-joinder of parties and causes of action.

4. The trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for ? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land ? OPP.

3. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land as tenants ? OPD

4. Whether the defendant No. 1 relinquished his tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for ? OPP

5. Whether the present suit is maintainable in the present form? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action ? OPD.

8. Relief

5. The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs Under issue No. 4, it held that defendants never relinquished the tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs and decided the said issue against the plaintiffs. Under issue No 5, the lower Court held that the suit for grant of permanent injunction was not maintainable and the plaintiffs were held to be out of possession. Issue No. 6 was not pressed and, as such, was decided accordingly. Cumulatively considering the findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial Court under Issues Nos. 4 and 5 regarding which submissions were putforth before it by the plaintiffs and