Sanjay Karol, J.

This is the plaintiff’s Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Plaintiff’s Civil Suit No. 130/1 of 91, titled as Shri Taj Ali vs. Shri Rashid Ali & others, stands decreed by the learned Sub Judge, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., in terms of judgment and decree dated 23.9.1998. Aggrieved thereof, defendants namely Charag Din, Hanif, Mahboob, Rasida, Gulab Singh, Mastana, Multana, Nurjhan and Munni filed an appeal which stands allowed in terms of judgment and decree dated 13.9.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 217-S/13 of 1998, titled as Shri Charag Din & others vs. Shri Taj Ali & others.

3. Barkat Ali had two sons namely Sher Ali and Abdulla @ Dulla. Sher Ali was married to Sahabi and Abdulla was married to Kresha. Through the loins of Sher Ali, Sahabi gave birth to Taj Ali (plaintiff) and Rashid Ali (defendant No. 1). Through the loins of Abdulla, Kresha gave birth to Bhadar Ali (defendant No. 3), Nazir Ali (predecessor in interest of defendants No. 4 to 15), Shaffi (predecessor in interest of defendants No. 16 to 20) and Taj Deen (predecessor in interest of defendants No. 21 to 25). After death of Abdulla, Sher Ali married Kresha and through her gave birth to Saraju Din and Punni.

4. Vide mutation No. 58, dated 9.11.49 estate of Sher Ali stood mutated in the names of Taj Din, Rashid Ali and Saraju Din. Revenue record reflected Taj Ali to be son of Abdulla and Taj Din to be son of Sher Ali. According to the plaintiff, such entries reflecting parentage are factually incorrect. Resultantly plaintiff filed a suit praying for the following relief:

“It is thus prayed that it be kindly be declared that plaintiff is son of shri Sher Ali and not son of Abdulla and shri Taaj Din deceased was son of Abdulla and not son of shri Sher Ali and thus entry in the column of ownership in the jamabandi of Taj Din s/o Sher Ali be kindly held to be wrong and contrary to facts. Decree of Declaration to that effect may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants be further be restrained by decree of perpetual Injunction from making the wrong Revenue entries as the basis of any right or title. The costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. Such other relief as the court may deem fit be granted to the plaintiff.”

5. Contesting defendants No. 3, 21 and 24 filed a joint written statement, admitting parentage of Taj Ali, born to Sahabi through Sher Ali. However, Taj Din also pleaded to be born through Sher Ali and not Abdulla.

6. Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether Taj Deen is son of Abdula @ Dulla, as alleged, if so its effect? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit as alleged OPD

4. Whether the suit is time barred as alleged? OPD

5. Relief.”

7. Based on the evidence led by the parties, trial Court decided issued No. 1, holding plaintiff Taj Ali to be born through Sher Ali and Taj Deen to be born through Abdulla. Issues No. 2 and 3 were decided against the contesting defendants for want to evidence. Similarly Issue No. 4 was also decided for the reason that (i) entries of mutation were not effected in the presence of the plaintiff (ii) having learnt about the same, prompt action was taken. Hence suit was filed within the period of limitation. Thus decree was passed in the following terms:-

“16. In view of my findings and observations given under aforementioned issued, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. It is declared that deceased Sh. Taj Din was the son of Sh. Abdula and not the son of Sh. Sher Ali and accordingly, revenue entries showing Sh. Taj Din as the son of Sher Ali in the land comprised in khata No. 35 Khatauni No. 50 Kitas 16 measuring 44 bighas and 9 biswas situated in chak Hulli Pargna Chagaon, Tehsil Kotkhai Distt. Shimla are declared wrong, illegal and voi