JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The plaintiff instituted civil suit No. 84/2000, before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) Chamba. In the afore suit, he claimed the making of a decree for declaration, and, for possession, reliefs whereof, are extracted hereinafter:

"A) Decree for declaration to this effect that area of the land comprising in khasra No. 909, khatta khatoni No. 115/121 situated in mohal shikari, Pargana Tissa, Tehsil Churah, Distt. Chamba is 03-08-00 bighas and not 01-19-00 bighas as shown in the present Jamabandi. Thus, the area of Khasra No. 909 (suit land) may be declared 03-08-00 bighas.

(B) Decree for possession of the land comprised in khatta khatoni No. 115/121 bearing khasra Nos. 909 measuring 01-19-00 bighas out of the total land 03-08-00 bighas which has been encroached upon by the defendant, situated in mohali Shikari, Pargana, Tissa, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, be passed in favour of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 to 4 and against defendant No. 1 with costs."

2. The learned trial Judge, through its verdict made, on 30.6.2005, upon Civil suit No. 84/2000, proceeded to dismiss the afore civil suit. The aggrieved plaintiff constituted, against the afore made verdict, of, dismissal, of, his suit, by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Chamba, civil appeal bearing No. 56 of 2005, before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court, through its verdict, made on 26.9.2006, upon Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2005, dismissed the afore civil appeal, and, obviously affirmed and maintained the verdict, of, dismissal of civil suit No. 84 of 2000, as made earlier by the learned trial judge concerned.

3. The plaintiff is aggrieved from the afore concurrently recorded judgments, and, decrees, as made by both the learned Courts below, and, is led to there against institute the instant appeal before this Court. When the instant appeal came up for hearing on 16.5.2007, it became admitted, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:

1. Whether there has been misreading and mis-appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence by both the Courts below?

2. Whether the learned first appellate Court erred in holding the suit to be not maintainable?

4. Ext. PA is the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, wherein the area of the suit land, is, reflected to be 1-19-00 bighas. A rebuttable presumption of truth is attached to the entries occurring in the records of rights. Since, the entries occurring in the record of rights, were a sequel of settlement operations, becoming conducted, in the mohal concerned. Therefore, the reflections of the area of the suit land therein, hence as 1-19-00 bighas, prima-facie, assume an aura of solemnity and truthfulness, as no cogent rebuttal evidence became adduced. The reasons for the afore conclusion, arise from the factum, that during the course of holding of settlement operations, by the revenue agency concerned, rather all the relevant documents, with respect to the relevant estates, hence are made available to the settlement staff concerned. The apposite musabi, is one of the most important documents, for the settlement staff, hence holding valid settlement operations in the mohal concerned. The dimensions/areas of all the apposite estates, hence occurring in the mohal concerned, are, reflected in the musabi. The updations of all the relevant records, appertaining to any estate right holder, and as arising from valid mutations of inheritance, exchange or sale and relinquishments, if not earlier entered in the relevant columns, of the Jamabandi concerned, also occur during settlement operations. Since, the apposite Jamabandi has been prepared, during the course of settlement operations, as became undertaken in the mohal concerned. Therefore, the area of the suit land, as entered in the Jamabandi, appertaining to the suit land, is to be concluded, to be in concurrence, as well as in complete tandem, with the displays thereof, as occur in th