JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.: This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 1, 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff against the judgment and decree date 15.5.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for declaration, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the land comprising khata khatauni No. 53/120 min khasra No. 400/381/1, measuring 13 bighas 14 biswas as specified in the mtima field with the plaint, situate in village Ajrauli Bindoli, Teh. Shillai, Distt. Sirmaur (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and the respondent-defendant-State (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has no right, title and interest over the same and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to incorporate the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. Case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, briefly stated, is that his father re-claimed the suit land about 40 years back and the plaintiff laid an orchard thereon many years ago and has also his abadi thereon which has been constructed after spending a huge amount and that their possession over the suit land had been peaceful, open, continuous, uninterrupted and to the knowledge and exclusion of all including the defendant for the said period but they are not being shown in the cultivating possession in the entries in the revenue papers though in the entries in the khasra girdawari, abadi and crops are being shown in the suit land. It is therefore, claimed that the plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and has become owner of the suit land. It is further averred that proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated against the father of the plaintiff but the same are illegal and without jurisdiction. However, the orders passed in such proceedings are wrong and against the provisions of law. It is further averred that proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated against the father of the plaintiff but the same are illegal and without jurisdiction. However, the orders passed in such proceedings are wrong and against the provisions of law. The Sub Divisional Collector, Paonta, in his order dated 23.11.1993 had mentioned that "there is no denying the fact that the encroacher has been in possession of the land for a pretty long time, i.e. for more than 40 years", and also has given a direction that "if the plaintiff has claimed his possession over the land for more than 30 years, he should have sought the remedy in Civil Court for his right of adverse possession". It is the further case of the plaintiff that he had issued a notice to I lie defendant under Section 80 CPC which was not replied to, thought the defendant in all fairness, should admit the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land. Hence the present suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit. In the written statement, is raised the preliminary objection that the plaintiff has no cause of action; that the suit is not within the period of limitation nor is maintainable in the present form; that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it has been averred that Kali Ram, father of the plaintiff, encroached upon a part of the suit land measuring 4-6-0 bigha in December 1981 and a damage report was accordingly issued by the concerned forest guard. Said Kali Ram was finally ordered to be ejected vide order dated 3.6.1982 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Shilai and that the entries regarding cultivation/orchard etc. were got forged and incorporated wrongly in the khasra girdawari by the plaintiff from patwari who was neither competent nor authorised to incorporate such entire and such entries were not verified and admitted to be correct by the concerned field kanungo. The jamabandies, till date, do not show the land . under cultivation and it is a reserved forest. were got forged and incorporated wrongly in the khasra girdawari by the plaintiff from patwari who was neither competent nor authorised to incorporate such entire and such entries were not verified and admitted to be correct by the concerned field kanungo. The jamabandies, till date, do not show the land . under cultivation and it is a reserved forest. The possession, as alleged by the plaintiff, has been denied and it is claimed that he is simply an encroacher who was proceeded against by the forest department by initiating the ejectment proceedings against him under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act and has been ordered to be ejected from the suit land by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Shilai and Collector, Paonta Sub Division. Hence the claim of the plaintiff has been denied. 4. The plaintiff filed replication wherein the grounds of defence as taken in the written statement, were denied and the claim as made out in the plaint was re-affirmed. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP 2. Whether the revenue entries in the name of the plaintiff were wrongly deleted in the year 1989? OPP 3. Whether the proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act against the father of the plaintiff are illegal? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD 6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC was not served on defendant and as such the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 9. Relief. 6. Vide judgment dated 15.5.1992, the trial Court decided issues 1 to 3 against the plaintiff and issues 4 to 8 against the defendant and as a consequence, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, who dismissed the same by the impugned judgment. Hence the present appeal. 8. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: 1. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, who dismissed the same by the impugned judgment. Hence the present appeal. 8. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the learned District Judge has erred in not granting relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the appellant and against the respondent with a direction to incorporate the name of appellant in khasra girdawari and other revenue records pertaining to the suit land even though possession of appellant on this land has been established ? 2. Whether learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted pleadings and evidence on record and has thus erred in returning the findings of adverse possession against the appellant ? 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 10. The questions No. 1 supra can be properly answered in the light of answer to question No. 2, therefore, the second question supra is taken up first for determination. This question necessarily involves the question as to whether the plaintiff and his predecessor-in- interest had been in continuous possession of the suit land for a period of 30 years immediately before the institution of the suit. This question of fact has been answered by both the Courts below in the negative and thus there are concurrent findings to the effect that the plaintiff/his prodessor-in-interest are not proved to be in possession of the suit land for a continuous period of 30 years immediately before the institution of the suit. These findings of fact can 6e interfered with only if it is shown that the Courts below have not considered the material and/or relevant evidence or the findings have been arrived at by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence. 11. It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the entries in the copy of Khasra girdawari Ext. PW-l/G showing the suit land as cultivated from May 12,1975toMarch4,1979 and continuation of such entries even thereafter vide copies of Khasra Girdawari Ext. PW-l/H, Ext. PW-l/J and Ext. 11. It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the entries in the copy of Khasra girdawari Ext. PW-l/G showing the suit land as cultivated from May 12,1975toMarch4,1979 and continuation of such entries even thereafter vide copies of Khasra Girdawari Ext. PW-l/H, Ext. PW-l/J and Ext. PW- 1/K till 1986, the stand taken by the defendant that the land in suit was encroached upon in 1981, is belied and in view of the said entries and oral evidence led by the plaintiff, his possession over the suit land was established for more than 40 years before the institution of the suit. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove continuous possession over the suit land for 30 years immediately before the institution of the suit, are not sustainable. 12. The trial Court vide paras 7 and 8 of its judgment and the lower appellate Court vide paras 10 to 12 of the impugned judgment have taken into account and appreciated the aforesaid entries in Khasra Girdawari and the oral evidence led by the plaintiff. It is, therefore, not a case of non-consideration of materiel/relevant evidence or of relying on inadmissible evidence. This is not even a case of misappreication of evidence. The entries relied upon by the plaintiff do not prove his possession over the suit land as a whole even in the year 1975, i.e. even 15 years before the institution of the suit. The suit land is admittedly a part of Khasra No. 400/381 measuring 260-00 bighas. As per entries in Ext. PW- 1/G, only an area of 3 Bighas out of the entire land is shown as cultivated for the first time and 87 fruits plants are also shown there on. In Kharif 1975 0-5-0 Bighas of more land appears to have been brought under Abadi. This position continues till Kharif 1979 and in Kharif 1980an area of 6 Bighas in all is shown as cultivated vide copy of Khasra Girdawari Ext. PW-l/H. As per entries in the Khasra Girdawari Ext. PW-l/J, there are variations in the area of the cultivated land and the land shown as Abadi but such area in no case exceeds 7 Bighas in all during the period from March 1983. Vide copy of Khasra Girdawari Ext. PW-l/H. As per entries in the Khasra Girdawari Ext. PW-l/J, there are variations in the area of the cultivated land and the land shown as Abadi but such area in no case exceeds 7 Bighas in all during the period from March 1983. Vide copy of Khasra Girdawari Ext. PW1/K 25-15-0 Bighas out of the total area is shown a Nakabil and the remaining area as cultivated to the extent of 6 Bighas and as Abadi to the extent of 0-5-0 Bihgas. On the basis of these entries, the learned District Judge has rightly concluded that the encroachment on the land Khasra No. 400/381 was stated in the year" 1975 when 3 Bighas of land was encroached and with the passage of time, more area was encroached upon and by the year 1985 total area of 6-5-0 Bighas had been encroached upon. The conclusion that the entire suit land was not possessed by the plaintiff/his predecessor even in the year 1981, is further strengthened by the copy of Aks Tatima Shajra Ext. DW-4/A read with copy of damage report Ext. DW-5/A showing that out of the land Khasra No. 400/381, an area of 4-6-0 Bighas only was found in December 1981 as encroached upon by Kali Ram, father of the plaintiff. It is, thus, evident that the area of the suit land over and above the aforesaid 4- 6-0 Bighas had been encroached upon after December 1981. 13. The oral evidence led by the plaintiff to prove that the suit land had been in his possession for more than 40 years at the time of institution of the suit is not cogent and reliable and is contradicted and rebutted by the entries in the Khasra Girdawari as discussed where-in-above and relied upon by the plaintiff himself. 14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the fruit trees standing on the land in suit are proved to be 25 years of age and these were planted by the plaintiff/his predecessor and this aspect has not been taken into account by the learned District Judge. Assuming, though not admitting, that the plaintiff or his predecessor- in-interest planted the fruit trees in the land in suit 25 years before the institution of the suit, that will prove possession of 25 years only and not of 30 years statutory period to acquire title by adverse possession. Assuming, though not admitting, that the plaintiff or his predecessor- in-interest planted the fruit trees in the land in suit 25 years before the institution of the suit, that will prove possession of 25 years only and not of 30 years statutory period to acquire title by adverse possession. The fact, however, remains that there is no cogent and trustworthy evidence to prove that the fruit trees were planted on the suit land 25 years before the institution of the suit. The plaintiff (PW-1) has stated that the fruit plants were planted about 25-30 years before. According to PW-3 Raini Ram, these were planted 20 years before. According to DW-4 Tulsi Ram, who remained posted as Patwari of the concerned area during 1979-83, these trees at that time were about 5-7 years of age. The statement of DW-4 Tulsi Ram finds corroboration from the entries in the Khasra Girdawari Ext. PW-l/G showing the fruit plants standing on a portion of suit land in the year 1975. Thus, the evidence on record negatives the contention that the fruit plants had been planted on the suit land before 1975. 15. In view of the above, the findings of the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land for a continuous period of 30 years immediately before the institution of the suit, are based on correct appraisal and appreciation of evidence and call for no interference. 16. While addressing arguments on question No. 1 supra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff has been proved in possession of the suit land, therefore, mandatory injunction to enter the same in his cultivating possession ought to have been granted as prayed for. 17. There is no dispute that there is subsisting and executable order for removal of the encroachment Ext. D-3 passed by the Assistant Collector, confirmed by the Collector vide order Ext. DW-3/C in respect of a portion of the suit land measuring 4-6-0 Bighas as found encroached upon in 1981. Being encroacher over the remaining portion of the the suit land and having been found not to have acquired title thereto as claimed, the plaintiff is liable to be evicted therefrom in accordance with law. Therefore, even if the mandatory injunction, as prayed for, was granted, it could be rendered nugatory at the mere wish of the defendant. Being encroacher over the remaining portion of the the suit land and having been found not to have acquired title thereto as claimed, the plaintiff is liable to be evicted therefrom in accordance with law. Therefore, even if the mandatory injunction, as prayed for, was granted, it could be rendered nugatory at the mere wish of the defendant. Where an injunction order if granted would be rendered nugatory at the mere wish of the part) against whom it is granted, the Court should not grant it. The contention therefore, does not hold good. 18. In view of the above findings, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal. Petition dismissed.