JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. This is the defendant's Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's Civil Suit No. 103 of 1990, titled as Dhani Ram vs. Avtar Singh and Others, stands partly decreed by Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in terms of judgment and decree dated 26.2.1999. Such findings of fact, judgment and decree stand affirmed by the District Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P. on 28.4.2001, in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1999, titled as Avtar Singh and Others vs. Dhani Ram and Others, filed by contesting defendants No. 1 and 2. Thus, the present appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact. 2. Courts below concurrently have held plaintiff Dhani Ram alongwith performa defendants No. 10 to 12 to be owners of the suit premises. Also performa defendants No. 3 to 9, who were tenants under the owners handed over the possession of the suit premises to the contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) 3. Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the following terms:- "Net result of all the discussions made above and the conclusions arrived at supra is that the present suit succeeds in part and the same is, therefore, partly decreed. I, accordingly, pass a decree for possession of the disputed shop comprised in Khasra No. 741, measuring 1 Biswa, situated in Mouza Khani, Teh. Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P. in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. However, the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of decree for recovery of Rs. 2160/- as damages for use and occupation of the shop in question by the defendants being devoid of any merit is declined. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared." 4. The decree was passed, based on respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence so led, after framing the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiff has constructed a shop in dispute, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit land had fallen to the share of plaintiff in partition with his brother Mahajan as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff rented out disputed shop to defendants No. 3 to 9 as alleged? OPP 4. If issue No. 3 is proved in affirmative, whether defendant No. 3 to 9 illegally sublet the same to defendant No. 1 and 2 in the year 1979 as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff rented out disputed shop to defendants No. 3 to 9 as alleged? OPP 4. If issue No. 3 is proved in affirmative, whether defendant No. 3 to 9 illegally sublet the same to defendant No. 1 and 2 in the year 1979 as alleged? OPP 5. Whether defendant No. 1 and 2, are in unauthorized possession of disputed shop and plaintiff is entitled for damage of Rs. 2,160/- for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. Sixty per month as alleged? OPP 6. Whether suit of plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD-2, 5, 6, 7. 7. Whether suit is time barred as alleged? OPD-2, 5, 6, 7. 8. Whether defendant No. 1 and 2 were inducted as tenant by late Sh. Makhalu, at the rate of Rs. Ten per month as alleged? OPD-2, 5, 6, 7. 9. Whether revenue entries pertaining to the shop in dispute are wrong and incorrect as alleged? OPD-2, 5, 6, 7. 10. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct as alleged? OPD-1, 2, 5, 6, 7. 11. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD-1. 12. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action as alleged? OPD-1 13. Whether the plaintiff is not owner of the disputed shop as alleged? OPD-1 14. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 have become owner by adverse possession being in possession of disputed shop for more than twenty years as alleged? OPD-1, 2. 15. Relief." 5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the suit laid by the plaintiff was maintainable without serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the original tenant? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree suffers from misreading and misinterpretation of pleadings, evidence including documentary evidence on record? 3. Whether the plea raised by the proforma defendants in the written statement could be made basis for passing decree in favour the plaintiff?" 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal. It cannot be said that the courts below, misread or misconstrued the evidence (oral or documentary) in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal. It cannot be said that the courts below, misread or misconstrued the evidence (oral or documentary) in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. 7. Co-owners, proforma defendants No. 10 to 12 are not aggrieved of the decree passed by the courts below. Be that as it may, suit filed by one of the co-owners against a rank trespasser or person in unauthorized or illegal possession always enures for the benefit of co-owners. 8. The plea of contesting defendants that tenancy initially stood surrendered and that subsequently they were inducted as tenants by Makhaolu stands repelled by the Courts below. Original tenants by their act and conduct already expressed their intention of surrendering their tenancy. That apart, contesting defendants were called upon to hand over possession vide notice dated 21.6.1988 (Ext. P-1). It has come on record through document (Ext. P-7) that contesting defendants came into possession of the suit property in the year 1979. Findings of fact so rendered by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse, erroneous or illegal in any manner. 9. It is not that trial Court decided the issues in the manner in which the plaintiff so desired. In fact, plaintiff's contention of being exclusive owner of the land and thus raised construction thereupon, subsequent to partition effected between him and his brother, predecessor-in-interest of proforma defendants No. 10 to 12, stands repelled. Revenue record (Ext. P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10) as also testimony of witness Sh. Dhani Ram (PW-1) was considered while returning such findings. 10. Significantly, before the Court below, contesting defendants did not press issues No. 6, 7 and 10 so framed on the plea of suit being bad for non-joinder of parties, being time barred and not maintainable on account of act and conduct of the plaintiff. 11. Contesting defendants' possession in the suit property being illegal and unauthorized, in any event, no notice determining tenancy was required to be served. But none the less plaintiff did serve notice dated 21.6.1988 (Ext. P-1) seeking possession of the suit property. 12. Also the contesting defendants have taken mutually destructive pleas. On one hand they claim tenancy and on the other hand title by way of adverse possession. But none the less plaintiff did serve notice dated 21.6.1988 (Ext. P-1) seeking possession of the suit property. 12. Also the contesting defendants have taken mutually destructive pleas. On one hand they claim tenancy and on the other hand title by way of adverse possession. They failed to establish either. Testimony of Makhalu to such effect was relevant, which is missing in the instant case. It is in this backdrop, one finds that no substantial question of law, as framed, arises for consideration in the present appeal, which in any event are answered accordingly. 13. Consequently, I do not find any reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts and material placed on record by the parties or that the same is perverse which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.