A. L. Vaidya, J.—The dispute between the parties pertained to the tenancy rights which they were claiming in the suit land measuring 3 Kanals 16 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 134, Khatauni No. 300 and Khasra No. 14/4/2 situate in village Santokhgarh, Tehsil and Distt. Una. The present respondents, that is. Garibu deceased and Balkrishan minor were the plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration before the trial Court. Their simple case had been that plaintiff No. 1. that is, Garibu and father of plaintiff No. 2 were in occupation of the suit land as tenants at Will on payment of rent for the last so many years and after the death of father of plaintiff No. 2 the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession of the suit land as tenant at Will. According to the plaintiffs, the present appellant Sh. Tulsa Singh was a clever person who connived with Patwari Halqua and got himself incorporated in the revenue record in Kharif 1976 as tenant at Will of the suit land without any right, title and interest. This entry in the name of defendant Tulsa Singh has been assailed to be illegal and wrong entry. It has been pleaded that on the basis of this wrong entry defendant Tulsa Singh had been threatening to interfere in possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs as such filed a suit for grant of decree for declaration to the effect that they were in occupation as tenant at Will on payment of rent under the landlord of the suit land and entry in the revenue record in the name of defendant as tenant at Will in Kharif 1976 was wrong, incorrect, illegal having no effect on the tenancy rights of the plaintiff. As a consequential relief, plaintiff asked for prohibitory injunction and as an alternative relief they sought for possession of the suit land.

2. The defendant in the written statement denied the averments of the plaintiffs made in the plaint. On the other hand it was pleaded that neither plaintiffs nor their predecessors were in occupation of the suit land. However, according to the defendant he was in occupation of the suit land as a tenant and after the enforcement of H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter refer to as the Act) he has become owner in possession of the suit land. He further pleaded that actually plaintiffs were in occupation of some other land under the same landlord. The defendant in his written statement made it very clear that he was in actual possession of the suit land alongwith other land since 1968 as tenant on payment of rent and has been rightly so recorded in the revenue record by the authorities.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the defendant is tenant of the suit land as alleged? O. P. D.

2. What is the effect of non-mentioning of the value of the suit for court fee etc.? O. P. P.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as tenants under the owner? O. P. P. 3-A (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed

4. Relief.

4. Issue No. 1 was decided by the trial Court against the defendant while remaining issues were disposed of in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction was decreed.

5. The aforesaid judgment and decree were assailed by the present appellant before the lower appellate Court on various grounds. However the lower appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal.

6. The aforesaid Judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court have been assailed in the present appeal on various pleas, the main being that judgment and decree were liable to be quashed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit and the lower Courts below erred, in deciding the case, in appreciating law and proved facts on record.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and minutely scrutinized the record. J

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended vehemently that as the appellant had already been grante