JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against judgment and decree dated 22.11.2007 rendered by the learned District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 31/2007. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs' for convenience sake) filed a suit against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake) for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and workmen from raising any construction over the suit land as detailed in the plaint, as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98. According to the plaintiffs they were recorded in joint ownership and possession of the suit land with other co-sharers. Defendant was a complete stranger. On 10.8.2004, defendant started forcibly raising construction of Gharat on Khasra No. 30. He started collecting construction material with a view to grab the land of the plaintiffs to which he had no right. Defendant forcibly raised construction over the suit land and changed nature thereof. Thus, in these circumstances, the plaintiffs sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as co-sharers and a decree for mandatory injunction and if the defendant forcibly raised construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit, to restore the suit land to its original position. 3. Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, he had already constructed Gharat over Khasra No. 595 prior to the filing of the suit. Construction over Khasra No. 595 was made in the year 1980-81. 4. Plaintiffs filed replication. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 11.4.2005. Additional issue No. 4(A) was framed on 6.7.2006. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit on 31.8.2006. Plaintiffs fled an appeal before the District Judge, Chamba. He allowed the same on 22.11.2007. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. 4. Plaintiffs filed replication. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 11.4.2005. Additional issue No. 4(A) was framed on 6.7.2006. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit on 31.8.2006. Plaintiffs fled an appeal before the District Judge, Chamba. He allowed the same on 22.11.2007. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. The present Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 6.8.2008, on the following substantial question of law: “Whether in view of the fact that the Gharat was being run since the year 1980 and the construction had been made more than twenty four years before the filing of the suit, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction, possession as also permanent injunction from a portion of the land where the gharat was being run and the plaintiff could only be granted damages/compensation even if the appellant was not found to be in adverse possession of the property.” 6. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law framed, has vehemently argued that the first appellate Court has not correctly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence. He has also argued that the first appellate Court could not order the defendant to deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. 7. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 9. PW-1 Nidhia Ram testified that he was owner-in-possession of the suit land with Sukhdev and defendant was stranger, who had started construction of Gharat over Khasra No. 1276/30. He had also got the spot inspected. Defendant had encroached upon ½ Biswa of land. 10. PW-2 Janam Singh has corroborated the statement of PW-1 Nidhia Ram. According to him, Nidhia and Sukhdev were co-owners-in-possession of the suit land, which was situate at a distance of 1 km from his house. Defendant did not own any land there. He had inspected the spot when plaintiff filed the suit. Suit land was demarcated in the presence of the parties. Defendant was found to have encroached 9 Biswansis of land, under his Gharat. 11. PW-4 Shamsdeen, Kanungo testified that application titled Nidhia vs. Darsho was entrusted to him. He went to the spot and demarcated the land in suit. Tatima Ext. Suit land was demarcated in the presence of the parties. Defendant was found to have encroached 9 Biswansis of land, under his Gharat. 11. PW-4 Shamsdeen, Kanungo testified that application titled Nidhia vs. Darsho was entrusted to him. He went to the spot and demarcated the land in suit. Tatima Ext. PW-4/B was prepared by Patwari, which was attested by him. Statements of the parties were recorded vide Ext. PW-4/C. Report is Ext. PW-4/A was correct as per spot. 12. Defendant has appeared as DW-1. He led his evidence by filing affidavit. According to him, he has installed Gharat over Khasra No. 595 about 25-26 years ago. He had not raised any construction in the year 2004. Plaintiffs dismantled his Gharat and he made a complaint to the police in this regard. He had been coming in possession of the Gharat since 1980-81. He had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. 13. DW-2 Punnu has also led his evidence by filing affidavit. According to him, Gharat was constructed by the defendant about 25-26 years back. He was in possession of the same. Defendant did not raise any construction over the suit land. Defendant had become owner of the land by way of adverse possession. 14. DW-3 Budhi Singh also led his evidence by filing affidavit. In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that the Gharat was constructed over the land of Nidhia. He further admitted that defendant had raised construction of Gharat in August, 2004. 15. Plaintiff has led evidence that he is in possession of the suit land comprising of Khata Khatauni No. 1/1 Khasra No. 30, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 42 Kita 6 situate in Mauja Seri, Pargna Jundh, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98. Spot was inspected by PW-4 Shamsdeen. He prepared Ext. PW-4/A. Tatima Ext. PW-4/C was prepared by Patwari. He attested the same. According to the report of PW-4 Shamsdeen, defendant had encroached the land of the plaintiffs to the extent of 0-0-9 Biswansis. When the defendant appeared as DW-1, he could not narrate on which Khasra number, he has constructed the Gharat. He did not mention about the Khasra number in his affidavit. According to DW-2 Punnu, Gharat was constructed on the government land. He did not know whether the defendant had constructed the Gharat over the plaintiffs’ land in August, 2004. When the defendant appeared as DW-1, he could not narrate on which Khasra number, he has constructed the Gharat. He did not mention about the Khasra number in his affidavit. According to DW-2 Punnu, Gharat was constructed on the government land. He did not know whether the defendant had constructed the Gharat over the plaintiffs’ land in August, 2004. Surprisingly, DW-3 Budhi Singh has admitted that the Gharat was constructed over the land of the plaintiffs by the defendant in the year 2004. 16. Thus, the plaintiffs have duly proved that the defendant has encroached upon their land measuring 0-0-9 Biswansi, in the month of August, 2004. He has started raising construction over the same. Defendant could not prove his plea of adverse possession. Plaintiffs, besides seeking mandatory injunction have also prayed that if the defendant had forcibly raised construction of Gharat during the pendency of the suit, suit land be restored to its original position. Thus, the first appellate Court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate has failed to pinpoint any discrepancy or illegality in the demarcation report of Shamsdeen. Moreover, the parties were present at the time of demarcation, as per the statement of PW-2 Janam Singh. 17. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 18. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, the present appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.