JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J..(Oral): This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are aggrieved against the judgment of reversal. 2. Suit, out of which the appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiffs claiming decree for possession of the sun land. On appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, the trial Court granted to the plaintiffs decree for possession, as claimed by them. The appeal filed by the defendant stands allowed by the first appellate Court, Consequently, resulting in the dismissal of the suit. 3. Plaintiffs claimed their right, title and interest on the suit land as proprietary body and it was said that they have been continuously shown as owners in possession of the suit land prior to 1940 till 1970-71 when the defendant maneuvered an entry in his favour and was reflected in the revenue record to be in the occupation of the suit land. The plaintiffs, thus, claimed decree for possession. 4. Suit was resisted by the defendant on the plea that he has raised a house on a portion of the property" in question and he had invested huge money on it. The defendant also claimed to have become owner by way of adverse possession. The right, title and interest of the plaintiffs were denied. 5. A perusal of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court reveals that the Court conveniently by-passed the real question on different aspect. A look at the judgment shows that the first appellate Court directed itself to examine the legality of the vesting of the suit land in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Act and thereafter in the State of Himachal Pradesh by operation of law, that is on coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lards (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974. 6. In my considered opinion, this point was not even remotely directed to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the first appellate Court completely mis-directed itself to examine this question and then non-suiting the plaintiffs. 7. Jamabandi 1966-67, Ext. P.I. records in its proprietary column "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT HASAB HISSA MUNDARZA SHAJRA NASAB". In the possessory, column, it is recorded "KHUD KAST MAK-BUZA MALKHAN". The total land in question is 19 kanals 7 marlas. 7. Jamabandi 1966-67, Ext. P.I. records in its proprietary column "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT HASAB HISSA MUNDARZA SHAJRA NASAB". In the possessory, column, it is recorded "KHUD KAST MAK-BUZA MALKHAN". The total land in question is 19 kanals 7 marlas. 18 Kanals 7 Marlas are recorded as "BANJAR", whereas, one kanal is recorded as "KHARAlTAR" and in the revenue record at a Interstate it is recorded as "GAIR MUMK1N ABAD1". 8. Jamabandi 1971-72, Exl P.2, records Gram Panchayat in the column or ownership, whereas, in the column of cultivation defendant Mecnku is recorded as "GAIR.MAR00S1". Interestingly, in column No.9 pertaining to rent, it is recorded as "MASHK.00K". 9. In Jamabandi 1976-77, Ex.P.3. Provincial Government is recorded as owner and Meenku defendant is recorded in possession as "GAIR MA-ROOSI". Against the column of rent, word "MASHKOOK" appears again The kind of land is recorded the same as noticed above. 10. In the remarks column No. 12 there is an important note in red ink that the mutation has been ordered to be cancelled from the name of the State and is further ordered to be sanctioned in favour of the proprietors showing the land as "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT". This order appears to have been passed by the Tehsildar, as per report. 11. Ext. P.4 is the Girdawari from 1968 to 1972 recording "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT" as owner and in the possessory column as "MAKBUZA MAL-KAN". 12. The defendant has also placed copies of the revenue record, some of which are exactly similar notice of which has been taken above. 13. Ext. D.2 is Jamabandi 1576-77 recording Provincial Government is owner and Meenku defendant as "GAIR MAROOSI" in the column of cultivation. In the note given in red ink in the remarks column, it is said that vide order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated April 21. 1977, the allotment made in favour of tile defendant stands cancelled and he be allotted land at some other place. Here again 18 kanals 7 marlas arc recorded as "BANJAR” and one kanal is recorded as "GAIRMUMKIN ABADI". Ext. D.3 is the Khasra Girdawari and entries arc exactly the same as noticed above. Ext. D.4 is also the Girdawari from 1963 to 1972, where "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT" is recorded in the ownership column and in the possessory column "MAK-BUZA MALKAN" arc recorded. 14. Ext. D.3 is the Khasra Girdawari and entries arc exactly the same as noticed above. Ext. D.4 is also the Girdawari from 1963 to 1972, where "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT" is recorded in the ownership column and in the possessory column "MAK-BUZA MALKAN" arc recorded. 14. On perusal of the record of the first appellate Court, I find that there is a Jamabandi. Ext. R.I of the year 1980-81, where "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT HASAB HISSA MUNDARZA" is recorded as owner and defendant as "GAIR MAROOSI", in the column of cultivation, in column Mo.9 pertaining to rent, it is recorded as "MASHKOOK". This entry appears to have come on the surface after the mutauon was ordered to be cancelled from the name of the State and was further ordered to be sanction in the name of "HISSADARAN". There is another important Jamabandi on the record of the year 1941 -42, though it is unexhibited, but being entry from the record-of rights is per so admissible. In this Jamabandi "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT HASAB HISSA MUNDARJA" is recorded and the possession is of the proprietors. 15. All these documents noticed above would reveal that there was no question to be examined, in respect of the vesting of the suit land either in the name of the Gram Panchayat or in the name of the State. The present suit was filed by the proprietors as owners and a decree for possession was claimed against the defendant 16. Defendant claimed ownership by adverse possession. He could certainly be not permitted to claim title by way of adverse possession and the plea is liable to be rejected straightaway. Once the defendant has entered over the suit land by way of allotment and that too when the mutation was ordered to be sanctioned in favour of the State. This allotment was agitated by the plaintiffs, who ultimately succeeded in getting it cancelled and the documents in this respect have already been notice above in the earlier part of this judgment. 17. Once the claim of title pleaded by way of adverse possession by the defendant is rejected and the plaintiff’s are held of be the owners, entitled to possession of the suit land, the decree passed by the trial Court appears to be absolutely just and proper. 17. Once the claim of title pleaded by way of adverse possession by the defendant is rejected and the plaintiff’s are held of be the owners, entitled to possession of the suit land, the decree passed by the trial Court appears to be absolutely just and proper. It transpires that the defendant has raised a house over one kanal area and that portion of the suit land is recorded as "GAIR MUM KIN ABADI". Although, the defendant is held not to be entitled to that site, but the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in all fairness has conceded that the plaintiffs shall not dispossess the defendant from the constructed portion over the suit land and the defendant would be entitled to retain it. 18. In view of what has been said above, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is ordered to be set aside. Suit of the plaintiffs is ordered to be decreed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is upheld. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed