Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. ill of 1987, dated 12-4-1990 By means of impugned judgment and decree, the lower appellate Court has held that Mangat Ram (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1’) is in unauthorised occupation of disputed khasra numbers and not as a tenant and the judgment and decree of the trial Court to that extent was sec aside and the appeal was partly accepted. Nathu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and Avtar Chand (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2’) were held to be the owners of suit land but not in possession and the entries in the revenue record showing defendant No. 1 to be tenant at will under both of them i.e. plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are wrong and not binding upon them this judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court has been questioned in this appeal by the plaintiff. In order to properly appreciate the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties in this case/it is necessary to refer to a few facts, Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction and in the alternative for possession on the alleg