JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J (Oral) . This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Procedure has been preferred by appellants/defendants against judgment and decree dated 6.12.2001 passed by learned Addl. District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No.44- N/98. He affirmed the judgment and decree dated 1.7.1998 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nurpur in Civil Suit No.212/91 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts as necessary for determination of this appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land comprised in Khata No.138, Khatauni No.160, Khasra No.243, measuring 0-08-84 HM, situated in Mohal and Mauza, Charot, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra. The suit was instituted by plaintiffs/respondents being minors. The plaintiffs/respondents had claimed themselves to be the owner and averred that they never inducted the defendants /appellants as tenants over the suit land and it was during the consolidation operation when the defendants/appellants took forcibly possession of the suit land in the month of May, 1989 and since then they refused to vacate the suit land. 3.The defendants/appellants filed written statement, raising the grounds of estoppel on the plea that compromise between the parties had been entered into and also claimed that they were in possession over the suit land for the last more than 25 years and have become owners of the suit by way of adverse possession. 4.On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 25.2.1997 had framed the following issues:- (1)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit land? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD (3)Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD (4)Relief. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents by passing a decree of possession of the suit land. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants/appellants preferred an appeal before learned lower appellate Court who vide its judgment and decree dated 6.12.2001 dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed the learned two Courts below, the defendants/appellants has filed the present appeal before this Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants/appellants preferred an appeal before learned lower appellate Court who vide its judgment and decree dated 6.12.2001 dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed the learned two Courts below, the defendants/appellants has filed the present appeal before this Court. 6.This Court on 26.3.2002 admitted the appeal on following substantial questions of law:- “Whether the Courts below, particularly, the lower appellate Court had mis-read and mis-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the document Ex.DA, which vitiates the impugned judgment and decree?” 7.I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record of the case. 8.At the out set Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has pointed out that the substantial question of law as framed does not arise for consideration because the defendants/appellants though had raised various grounds in the memorandum of appeal yet when the appeal came up for arguments, the only question raised before the learned lower appellate Court was qua the findings returned by the learned trial Court regarding plea of adverse possession. This would be clear from opening para-7 of the judgment of learned lower appellate Court which reads as under:- “The only argument which has been addressed during the course of hearing of this appeal before this Court by the ld. Counsel for the appellants relates to infirmity in the judgment and decree of the ld. Trial court in rejecting the plea of adverse possession over the suit land of the defendants/appellants which according to the ld. Counsel for the appellant was clearly established by the evidence on record. “ 9.I find substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. Once the defendants/appellants had confined their arguments to the question of adverse possession alone despite having raised various grounds then the other questions including the question of law framed by this Court was not open for arguments in appeal. In Maganlal Chhotabhai Desai v. Chandrakant Motilal , AIR 1969 SC 37 the Hon’ble Court has held as follows:- “Mr. Chagla then contended that there was no valid notice under S.12(2). He argued that this point arose on the pleadings and the issues. In Maganlal Chhotabhai Desai v. Chandrakant Motilal , AIR 1969 SC 37 the Hon’ble Court has held as follows:- “Mr. Chagla then contended that there was no valid notice under S.12(2). He argued that this point arose on the pleadings and the issues. But we find that in the Trial Court the contention was that there was no valid notice to quit. It was not argued there that there was no valid notice under Section 12(2). The point regarding the validity of the notice was not raised before the Assistant Judge. The High Court properly refused to allow the point to be taken for the first time in revision. We are of the opinion that the point about the absence of a proper notice under S.12 (2) is not now open.” 10.This being the position of law, the question of law as framed by this court on 26.3.2002 cannot be gone into adjudicated by this Court. In case, the question of adverse possession is otherwise assumed to be based on mis-reading and mis-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence even then the material on record clearly suggest that this plea was discussed threadbare by the learned Courts below calling for no interference by this Court. Therefore, question of law is answered accordingly and consequently, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.