were recorded as owners of 1435/2686 shares. The plaintiffs contended that this entry was incorrect. Their case was that only Santu was the legitimate non- occupancy tenant under landlord Gitta Nand, and Budhiya was never inducted as a tenant, making the entry of his name in the 1962-65 record wrong and illegal.

4. They furtuher stated that by operation of the H.P. Tenancoy and Land Reforms Act, proprietary rights werCe granted exclusively to Santu vide notification dated 29.06.1976. After Santu's death in 1981, the plaintiffs inherited the land, with other legal heirs relinquishing their shares in their favour. The plaintiffs asserted exclusive ownership and possession, having sold and acquired parts of the land over time. They claimed to have discovered the wrongful entry of Budhiya's name only in March 2014. They challenged subsequent revenue entries, including Fard No.9 and Mutation No.1351, which recorded the share of late Budhiya in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, and an exchange deed dated 25.04.2014 executed by these defendants in favour of defendant No. 3, alleging all these actions were based on incorrect records and made in connivance with revenue staff.

5. The defendan