The duty of the appellate court to consider all issues and evidence led by the parties before recording its findings, and to assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of the present appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs have challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1999/RBT No. 76/04, vide which learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 381 of 1994 dated 18.09.1999, but also held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants were able to prove their respective claims on record.

2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 28.11.2007:

“1. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the ld. 1st Appellate Court is sustainable in the eyes of law for mis-construing and mis-interpreting the Exhibits P-1 and P-2 which are the copies of the Jamabandis showing the predecessor-in-interests of the appellants as non-occupancy tenants over the land in dispute?

2. Whether both the Ld. Courts below have committed an error while considering Exhibits D-1 to D-5 keeping in view the fact that Exhibits D-1 to D-5 do not pertain to the land in dispute?

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit to the effect that Santa, S/o Sidhu and Surbhan, widow of Makoda were non-occupancy tenants to half share of the suit land, whereas remaining half share was in the tenancy of Gopala, Gobind and Rohli, sons of Nikku as per Jamabandi consolidation 1962- 63 of village concerned. Subsequently, a clerical mistake crept in the revenue records and name of Naulu, son of Tahu also figured as nonoccupancy tenant, though this Naulu was never a tenant over the suit land. As per the plaintiff, his name appeared without any legal valid order by any competent authority and these entries in revenue records showing Naulu and his legal heirs, i.e. defendants as non-occupancy tenants and subsequently as owners of the suit land were incorrect, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree of declaration was sought to the effect that revenue entries showing defendants initially as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land and subsequently as owners of the same were incorrect and not binding on the plaintiff. It was further prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering over the suit land in any manner whatsoever.

4. The suit so filed by the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and there was no clerical mistake as was being alleged by the plaintiff because father of defendants, i.e. Naulu was cultivating the suit land as tenant since the time of his ancestors and accordingly his name was rightly recorded in the revenue records. According to the defendants, proprietary rights were rightly conferred upon them and revenue entries existing in this regard in their favour were neither wrong, illegal nor incorrect. Further, as per the defendants, the plaintiff had no legal right to challenge the revenue entries in a Civil Court as revenue entries cannot be corrected by a Civil Court. As per the defendants, the matter had been agitated before the Land Revenue Officer and in case the plaintiff was aggrieved, he could have agitated the matter before the Revenue Courts. On these basis, the suit so filed by the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether Naulu was not the tenant of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Relief.

6. The following findings were returned on the issues so framed by the learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:

“Issue No. 1: No.

Issue No. 2: No.

Relief: Suit dismissed with costs per operative part of the judgment.

7. Learned trial Court vide its jud