JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala thereby dismissing Civil Appeal No. 60-P/XIII of 1993 against the judgment and decree dated 23-4-1993 passed by the learned Sub-Judge (1), Palampur, dismissing the suit of the appellants. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that Madho Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants 1(a) to 1(d) and appellant No. 2 instituted a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for mandatory injunction against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). Case of the appellants, as made out in the plaint, is that they are the owners in possession of Abadi Deh land comprising Khasra No. 165 measuring 0-00-78 hectares situate in Mohal Kunsal Uperli, Mauza and Tehsil Baijnath. The respondent is the owner of the land adjacent to the said land and started interfering with the possession of the appellants in the land in suit by collecting material to raise construction on the suit land and also cut and removed some branches of Palm trees therefrom. In view of the threat of forcible dispossession by the respondent, suit was instituted claiming permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in the possession of the appellants over the suit land and in the alternative for mandatory injunction for removal of the structure if the respondent succeeded in raising any construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 3. The respondent contested the suit and filed written statement wherein he raised the preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable in the present form, that the appellants have no locus standi or cause of action against the respondent, that the appellants is estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct, that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction and the suit is bad for want of correct description of the suit land. On merits, it was denied that the appellants were the owners in possession of the suit land. It was claimed that the suit land was in possession of the respondent and had been acquired by the Public Works Department. On merits, it was denied that the appellants were the owners in possession of the suit land. It was claimed that the suit land was in possession of the respondent and had been acquired by the Public Works Department. It was further denied that the respondent had raised any construction over the suit land and it was claimed that he has started construction on land Khasra No. 164. Thus, the claim of the appellants has been denied in toto. 4. In the replication, the grounds of defence, as taken in the written statement, has been denied and the claim, as made out in the plaint, has been reaffirmed. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues; 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the defendant has raised construction on the suit land during the pendency of the suit, if so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the defendant has raised construction in Khasra No. 164, if so, to what effect? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD 9. Relief. 6. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 23-4-1993 held Issue No. 2 in favour of the appellants, Issue No. 1 was partly held in their favour whereas Issue No. 3 was held against them. Issue Nos. 4, 7 and 8 were decided against the respondent and Issue Nos. 5 and 6 were held in favour of the respondent and as a consequence the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved, predecessor-in-interest of appellants No. 1(a) to 1(d) and appellant No. 2 preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, who dismissed the said appeal by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, the present appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 8. Being aggrieved, predecessor-in-interest of appellants No. 1(a) to 1(d) and appellant No. 2 preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, who dismissed the said appeal by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, the present appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 8. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Courts below misap-preciated the provisions of law applicable, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 2. Whether documents Exhibits D-5 to D-7 have been misappreciated by the Courts below? 3. Whether the possession in Abadi Deh land amounts to ownership and title or specific entry of an individual is required to be traced as far as Abadi deh land is concerned? 4. Whether Courts below misconstrued the evidence thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees/ Substantial Question Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 9. Since all these questions pertain to the appreciation of the evidence and Question No. 1 further concerns appreciation of law and pleadings, therefore, are inter-connected and are taken up together for decision. 10. It is expedient to first trace out the identity of the suit land which is Khasra No. 165 and measures 0-00-78 hectares and is abadi deh as per the entries in the copy of misal hakiyat bandobast jadid Ex. D-2. Earlier this land comprised Khasra No. 391 as is evident from the contents of Ex. D-2. Copy of jamabandi for the year 1960-61 Ex. D-3, jamabandi for the year 1915-16, makes it evident that before the suit land was allotted Khasra No. 391, it comprised Khasra No. 328. As per the copy of jamabandi Ex. D-4, land Khasra No. 328 was earlier numbered as Khasra No. 43. Prior to allotment to Khasra No. 43 to the suit land as aforesaid, it consisted of Khasra Nos. 113 and 111 vide jamabandi for the year 1891-92. Ex. D-5. Thus, what is clear from the uncontroverted documentary evidence on record, is that in the year 1891-92, the suit land comprised Khasra Nos. 111 and 113 as per the entries in the Khewat Tarmim Bandobast, 1868. Land Khasra no. 113 and 111 vide jamabandi for the year 1891-92. Ex. D-5. Thus, what is clear from the uncontroverted documentary evidence on record, is that in the year 1891-92, the suit land comprised Khasra Nos. 111 and 113 as per the entries in the Khewat Tarmim Bandobast, 1868. Land Khasra no. 111 was abadi of one Jori and others and land Khasra No. 113 was abadi of Hadi, who were the sons of Prema. According to respondent (D.W. 1), the suit land, which is abadi, is coming in his ownership and possession and that of his brother and nephews since the time of his ancestors who were also the owners thereof. It is evident from the unrebutted contents of Nakal Shajra Nasab Exs. D-9 and D-2 that Prema was predecessor of the respondent. Thus, it is established that the suit land was once an abadi owned and possessed by Jori etc., brother of Roda, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. It is admitted case of the appellants vide statement of appellant-Madho Ram (P.W. 1) that Roda, Prema, Jori and Hadi, were not the ancestors of the appellants. In view of this position emerging from the documentary evidence, it was for the appellants to show as to how the possession of the predecessor in interest of the respondent in the suit land came to an end and how they came to be owners in possession of the suit land. It is not the case of the appellants that they either inherited the suit land or acquired its ownership and possession by way of any transfer. On the contrary, appellant-Madho Ram (P.W. 1) has stated that neither the suit land was acquired by them by purchase nor it came to them by inheritance. If so, the appellants have failed to lead any evidence as to how they acquired the ownership and possession of the suit land. Though Chuni Lal (P.W. 2) had stated that suit land was purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs from Thaina Ram by a written instrument, however, this statement is unreliable for the simple reason that it is not the case even of the appellants nor any written instrument has been brought on record to prove the title and possession of the appellants to the suit land. 11. There is yet another circumstance which lends credibility to the version of the respondent. A perusal of misal hakiyat Ex. 11. There is yet another circumstance which lends credibility to the version of the respondent. A perusal of misal hakiyat Ex. D-2 reveals that land Khasra No. 165 in suit initially measured 0-00-78 hectares. As per the note in the remarks column of Ex. D-2, ownership and possession of a part of this Khasra number, denoted as 165/1, measuring 0-00-20 hectare stood transferred to the State Government, leaving land measuring 0-00-58 hectares, now denoted as Khasra No. 445/165 vide copy of jamabandi for the year 1986-87 Ex. D-1. It is not the case of the appellants that any part of the suit land, had been acquired by the State Government. They are claiming ownership and possession of land Khasra No. 165 as a whole. P.W. 1, in his cross-examination, specifically denied that a part of Khasra No. 165 had been acquired for the road. He is not aware as to who got the compensation for the so acquired land. On the contrary, the respondent (D.W. 1) has specifically stated that out of the suit land i.e. Khasra No. 165, I marla was acquired for which compensation was paid to him and other co-sharers. This statement of the respondent has neither been challenged in the cross-examination nor has been rebutted in any other manner. On the contrary, it finds corroboration from the remarks column of misal hakiyat Ex. P-2, Ex. D-2 and jamabandi Ex. D-8. Had the suit land been owned and possessed by the appellants, it would have been known to them that a part of it had been acquired by the State and they would have got the compensation for it whereas they are unaware of it and on the contrary, respondent is aware of such acquisition and amongst other co-sharers had got compensation for such acquisition. This circumstance fully supports the claim of the respondent that he along with his brother and nephews is the owner in possession of the suit land. 12. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there has been total misconstruction and misappreciation of the evidence on record and particularly, the documents Exs. D-5 to D-7 had been misappreciated by the Courts below. A perusal of the record reveals that it is not so. Ex. 12. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there has been total misconstruction and misappreciation of the evidence on record and particularly, the documents Exs. D-5 to D-7 had been misappreciated by the Courts below. A perusal of the record reveals that it is not so. Ex. D-6 is a copy of misal hakiyat bandobast for the year 1891-92 which clearly points out that at one point of time there was abadi on the land comprising Khasra Nos. 111 and 113 which numbers were converted to Khasra No. 43. Ex. D-5, copy of jamabandi for the year 1915-16 reveals that Khasra No. 43 was renumbered as Khasra No. 328, Ex. D-7 also does not help the cause of the plaintiff in any manner which shows the possession of the property as it was in the year 1868. 13. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveals that both the Courts below have taken into account the evidence on record, appreciated it and have reached at the concurrent findings which are fully justified on the basis of the evidence on record. In view of this position and the evidence already referred to hereinabove, the contention raised for the appellants is unsustainable. Substantial Question No. 3 14. In view of the above conclusions, this question does not survive for determination in this appeal. 15. Be it stated that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court, are not interfered with in second appeal unless such findings are based either on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence or rejection of admissible evidence. Such findings cannot be interfered with even if another conclusion is possible on the basis of the evidence on record. In the case in hand, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are fully justified by the material on record and, therefore, calls for no interference. 16. As a result, this appeal merits dismissal, and is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal dismissed