JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, HP, in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2005, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2004, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No. 20/2004 (1995), whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the =plaintiff') was partly decreed for vacant possession of land measuring 0-0-8 bighas of the suit land with direction to the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the =defendant') to give vacant possession of the land described herein above of the suit land to the plaintiff by removing the construction. However, learned trial Court did not hold plaintiff entitled to the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that the plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and also for vacant possession against the defendant to the effect that the defendant should not raise an construction over the suit land and also not to remove protection wall and block the drain/nallah situated adjacent to protection wall and further not to block the flow of water either by himself or through his agents or family members etc. Plaintiff also prayed for decree for vacant possession in his favour and against the defendant directing him to remove encroachment made by him over the suit land. Similarly, plaintiff also prayed that defendant be restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever, in the suit land either by himself or through his agents or family members etc by passing a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in his favour and against the defendant. Plaintiff averred that land comprised in khata khatauni No. 92/127 khasra No. 248, measuring 0-4-1 bigha situated in mauja Chail/51, Teshil Chahiot, District HP, is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. He also stated that he constructed his residential house over the suit land and remaining part of the suit land is vacant and is being used as Sehan and kitchen garden etc. Plaintiff further averred that adjoining to the suit land, there is khasra No. 247 measuring 0—18 bigha and the defendant is having 280/1120 shares in the said land. He also stated that he constructed his residential house over the suit land and remaining part of the suit land is vacant and is being used as Sehan and kitchen garden etc. Plaintiff further averred that adjoining to the suit land, there is khasra No. 247 measuring 0—18 bigha and the defendant is having 280/1120 shares in the said land. Plaintiff further contended in the plaint that prior to consolidation, old khasra numbers of khasra No. 247 were 298 and 299, which were owned by Smt. Promila Kumari and these khasra numbers were given in exchange by her to the plaintiff in lieu of the khasra No. 572/296, which was converted into khasra No. 246 during the consolidation proceedings. He further prayed that plaintiff has raised a protection wall over old khasra No. 298 and there is a drain by the side of the wall since long. He further averred that the defendant started construction over khasra No. 247 by raising new building and later on the said construction was extended by the defendant towards khasra No. 248 i.e. suit land and also towards the drain. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendant forcefully removed the protection wall which was constructed by him for the protection of his residential house. It is also averred in the plaint that defendant has also encroached upon the portion of khasra No.248 by raising building thereon in the month of January, 1991. Plaintiff alleged that defendant despite several requests made by him, failed to obtain demarcation before raising construction. Cause of action arose to the plaintiff in the month of January, 1991, when defendant made encroachment and thereafter on 13.8.1995 when the defendant started digging portion of the suit land and blocked the drain. 3. Defendant by way of detailed written statement refuted the claim put forth by the plaintiff by taking preliminary objection of valuation, maintainability and non-joinder of parties. On merits, defendant while refuting the averments contained in the plaint stated that over part of khasra No. 241/1 measuring 0-0-8 bigha, there existed a house, which was previously in possession of S/sh. Rajinder Pal, Tek Chand, Hem Raj and Devender, Son of Ludermani. Defendant also stated that the said house was double storeyed and was over the land comprised in khasra No. 241/1 measuring 0-0-8 bigha i.e in the land comprised in khasra Nos. Rajinder Pal, Tek Chand, Hem Raj and Devender, Son of Ludermani. Defendant also stated that the said house was double storeyed and was over the land comprised in khasra No. 241/1 measuring 0-0-8 bigha i.e in the land comprised in khasra Nos. 297/298, 299, 300 and 303 kitas 5 measuring 0-5-19 bighas situated in mauja Chail. Defendant further claimed that co-owners vide registered sale deed dated 22.12.1978 sold the residential house along with kitchen to the defendant for sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and the possession was also delivered to him of part of khasra No. 248/1 measuring 0-0-8 bigha and thereafter, he renovated the existing structure over khasrsa No. 241/1 and has raised construction of three storeyed building. Defendant further claimed that his possession over khasra No 248/1 measuring 0-0-8 bigha is from the time of previous owners which is continuous, open, peaceful and is in hostile possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the defendant has acquired the title in the month of December, 1991, by way of adverse possession. The defendant also denied other averments made in the plaint and alleged that Promila Kumari has got no right title or interest in the suit land and he is owner in possession of khasra No. 247 and two shops of the defendant are over khasra No.247. The defendant specifically denied that he started any construction over the part of the Khasra No. 248 as alleged by the plaintiff nor he has removed the protection wall. Rather defendant stated that he has not encroached upon khasra No. 247 by raising building thereon in the month of 1991 and has also not started any digging operation for the construction of house on 13.8.1995. Plaintiff by way of replication reiterated the stand taken in the plaint and denied the defence taken by defendant in the written statement in toto. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of aforesaid pleadings and evidence, be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the respective parties, framed issues and partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff was held entitled to decree of vacant possession of the land measuring 0-0-8 bighas of the suit land and defendant was ordered to give vacant possession of the land measuring 0-0-8 bighas to the plaintiff by removing construction however, learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. 5. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court, defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Mandi. However, fact remains that the learned District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.2006 dismissed the appeal by the defendant. Hence, this second appeal before this Court by the plaintiff. 6. This Court vide order dated 8.5.2008 admitted the present appeal on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Where there has been misreading of evidence by the courts below in regard to sale deed Ext. DA as well as report of demarcation Ext. C-1 to C-3? 2. Whether the learned first appellate Court while maintaining doubt about the correctness of the demarcation report had erred in not exercising its jurisdiction in appointing of a fresh court commission or making a spot memorandum in terms of Order 26 Rule 9 and Order 18 Rule 18 CPC and whether without such application being rejected the judgment so pronounced was proper? 7. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the judgments and decree passed by both the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. He contended that bare perusal of the impugned judgments suggests that learned courts below have not dealt with evidence as well as pleadings available on record in its right perspective and judgments are purely based upon the conjectures and surmises and as such, same cannot be allowed to sustain. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid plea, Mr. Kuthiala, made this Court to travel through the evidence adduced on record by the parties to demonstrate that courts below misread and mis-appreciated the pleadings available on record, especially statement of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, Ext. PA to Ext. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid plea, Mr. Kuthiala, made this Court to travel through the evidence adduced on record by the parties to demonstrate that courts below misread and mis-appreciated the pleadings available on record, especially statement of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, Ext. PA to Ext. PD, Ext.PW5/A, statement of DW-1, Ext.DA, Ext.C-1,Ext.C-2 and Ext.P-3 and argued that once learned first appellate Court had disbelieved the report and tatima Ext.PW5/A prepared by PW5 being not in consonance with the HP High Court Rules and orders and standing instructions of the Financial Commissioner and vide order dated 5.7.2006 directed the local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land and the land of the defendant in khasra No. 247, he had no option but to set-aside the judgments and decree passed by the learned trial court which was entirely based upon the aforesaid report submitted by PW5. Mr. Kuthiala further contended that the learned court below failed to take into consideration the material fact that as per the defendant vide sale deed Ext.DA, he had bought land in khasra Nos. 297, 298, 299 300 and 303 (old) from the previous owners vide sale deed dated 22.12.1997 and the construction dispute was already existing when he had bought the land. He further contended that since there was purely boundary dispute between the parties, whereby entire area comprising khasra No. 241, 247, 248 as also the land given in exchange comprised in khasra No. 246, was to be demarcated, only question of encroachment was to be determined, but both the courts below failed to do so and as such, demarcation on the basis of which the findings were given was wrong and as such, judgment passed by both the courts below deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Kuthiala, forcefully contended that first appellant Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under Order 18 Rule 18 CPC despite there being application moved before the learned first appellate Court and as such, it has fallen in grave error. Mr. Kuthiala further stated that keeping in view the contrary reports given by the local commissioner, court below ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Order 18 Rule 18 CPC and get prepared on spot inspection memorandum alongwith the demarcation to decide the controversy for all times to come and as such, present judgment deserves to be quashed and setaside. Mr. Kuthiala further stated that keeping in view the contrary reports given by the local commissioner, court below ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Order 18 Rule 18 CPC and get prepared on spot inspection memorandum alongwith the demarcation to decide the controversy for all times to come and as such, present judgment deserves to be quashed and setaside. Mr. Kuthiala, further argued that bare perusal of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record suggests that appellant proved beyond reasonable doubt that he acquired the status of ownership qua the suit land by way of adverse possession but both the courts below without assigning plausible reasons rejected the aforesaid plea of adverse possession raised on behalf of the defendants. He stated that courts below failed to take into consideration that as per sale deed Ext.DA and the pleadings, there was a double storyed pre-existing house along with the vacant land sold to the appellant vide sale deed and on the double storeyed house, fresh construction had been done, but despite aforesaid learned courts below came to conclusion that appellant defendant encroached upon khasra No. 248 which fact/finding being contrary to record deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Similarly, with a view to substantiate his arguments qua the plea of adverse possession, Mr. Kuthiala invited attention of this Court to the pleadings available on record to demonstrate the appellant in unambiguous terms had pleaded that he has acquired statutes of ownership by way of adverse possession since he was in open and peaceful possession and in this regard, appellant-defendant had led cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he is in adverse possession of the property to the knowledge of the true owner. While concluding his arguments Mr. Kuthiala contended that there is no evidence much less positive evidence available on record to suggest that appellant defendant made any kind of encroachment over the suit land and finding returned by the learned trial Court which is based upon spot map Ext.PW5/A deserves to be quashed and set-aside because admittedly it is not a document of title. He also stated that learned first appellate Court while relying upon the report of local Commissioner i.e. Tehsildar Chachiot, has fallen in grave error because he also submitted two contrary reports and as such, no findings could be returned placing reliance upon the report submitted by him. In the aforesaid background, Mr. He also stated that learned first appellate Court while relying upon the report of local Commissioner i.e. Tehsildar Chachiot, has fallen in grave error because he also submitted two contrary reports and as such, no findings could be returned placing reliance upon the report submitted by him. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Kuthiala, prayed that the present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set-aside. 8. Per contra, Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff supported the judgments passed by the courts below. Mr. Sharma strenuously argued that the judgments passed by both the courts below are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and as such, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances and same deserves to be upheld. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Sharma, made this Court to travel through the judgments passed by the courts below to demonstrate that learned trial Court while ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the findings recorded by the court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and as such, there is no reason to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the courts below. Mr. Sharma, invited attention of this Court to the pleadings, especially written statement filed on behalf of defendant to state that there is clear cut admission on the part of the appellant-defendant, wherein he claimed himself to be owner in possession by way of adverse possession, meaning thereby, encroachment upon the land, as averred in the plaint, was admitted and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by both the courts below. Mr. Sharma, while concluding his arguments vehemently argued that this Court has very limited scope to re-appreciate the evidence especially when there are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. In this regard, he invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 . 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record. 10. In this regard, he invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 . 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record. 10. Perusal of the judgment (supra), suggests that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the finding so recorded are shown to be perverse. There can be no quarrel (dispute) with regard to aforesaid observation made by the Court and true, it is that in normal circumstances High Courts, while exercising powers under Section 100 CPC, are restrained from re-appreciating the evidence available on record, but as emerges from the case referred above, there is no complete bar for this Court to upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below, if the same appears to be perverse. 11. Careful perusal of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, clearly suggests that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land bearing khasra No. 248/1 measuring 0-0-8 bighas. During proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the entire evidence led on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof clearly suggests that plaintiff by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence was able to prove on record that defendant encroached upon the suit land comprising of khasra No.248/1 measuring 0-0-8 bighas by raising construction over the same. Though, defendant by way of pointing discrepancy in the demarcation report submitted by the PW5 Mohan Lal made an attempt to demonstrate that learned trial Court committed grave illegality while placing reliance upon the deposition made by PW5 as well as demarcation report submitted by him. Since the report was not carried out in accordance with the HP High Court Rules and Orders and standing instructions of the Financial Commissioner, careful perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court leaves no doubt in my mind that learned trial Court while decreeing the suit preferred by the plaintiff nowhere relied upon the statement of PW5 or report submitted by him. Learned trial Court heavily relied upon admission made by the defendant in his written statement, where he claimed himself to be owner by way of adverse possession. Learned trial Court heavily relied upon admission made by the defendant in his written statement, where he claimed himself to be owner by way of adverse possession. He admitted the claim of the plaintiff that he has encroached upon the land comprising Khasra Nno. 248 measuring 0-0-8 bighas. 12. Careful perusal of the written statement clearly suggests that defendant has encroached upon the suit land bearing khasra No. 248, whereupon he has raised construction, as has been unequivocally stated by all the prosecution witnesses. Cross examination conducted upon the PWs by the defendants nowhere suggests that defendants at any point of time, was able to extract anything contrary to what they stated in their examination in chief. Since perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court nowhere suggests that learned trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff placed reliance, if any, on the demarcation report submitted by PW5, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant defendant that since PW5 failed to carry out demarcation in accordance with HP High Court Rules and Orders and standing instructions of the Local Commissioner, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to place reliance on the same. 13. At the cost of repetition, it may be again stated that there was no requirement if any, for the trial Court to refer to the report of Local Commissioner in the teeth of admission made on behalf of the defendant that he is in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Though, defendant raised plea of adverse possession but there is no evidence available on record to suggest the fact that he was able to prove on record that he has acquired ownership by way of adverse possession and as such, this Court sees no illegality in the judgments passed by the courts below. Careful perusal of the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court clearly suggests that keeping in view the boundary dispute involved in the matter, learned first appellate Court appointed the Teshildar Chachiot as Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land, who in his two separate reports specifically reported that defendant encroached upon the suit land bearing khasra No. 248/1 bearing 0-0-8 bighas. Record further reveals that demarcation by the Tehsildar Chachiot was carried out in accordance with law in the presence of both the parties. 14. In view of the factum qua the encroachment as alleged by the plaintiff further proved on record by the Local Commissioner appointed by the court, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth by the counsel representing the appellant that learned first appellate Court erred in placing reliance upon the report submitted by the Local Commissioner appointed by it during the pendency of the appeal. Careful perusal of the judgments passed by the learned first appellate Court, nowhere suggests that it only placed reliance on the report of the Tehsildar Chachiot rather, learned first appellate Court also relied upon the admission having been made on behalf of the defendant in the written statement, where he claimed ownership as well as possession by way of adverse possession and as such, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of the material available on record. 15. This Court solely with a view to explore answer the substantial questions of law as stated above, perused the sale deed Ext.DA as well as demarcation report Ext.C-1 to C-3, perusal whereof, nowhere suggests that defendant was able to establish his possession over the suit land. Though, house existing upon khasra No. 247 was sold to the appellant but interestingly, no specific information/description disclosing therein the area of constructed house stands mentioned in the same. Similarly, this Court also perused the Ext.C1 to C3 which clearly suggests that defendant encroached upon the suit land by raising construction over the same, as has been discussed earlier, which may not have much relevance as far as controversy at hand is concerned, especially in view of the admission made by the defendant while claiming the ownership and possession by way of adverse possession and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity committed by courts below while decreeing the suit. 16. 16. Once in written statement, defendant claimed himself to be owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession, there was nothing required for plaintiff to prove on record that defendant has encroached upon the suit land bearing khasra No. 248/1, the onus was upon the defendant to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that he has procured his title by way of adverse possession. But in the instant case, as stated supra, there is no evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that plaintiff acquired the title of ownership by way of adverse possession. None of the defendant witnesses including defendant himself stated nothing qua the adverse possession as claimed by the defendant. Though, defendant in his written statement claimed that he is in possession of khasra No. 248/1 measuring 0-0-8 bighas from the time of the previous owner w.e.f. 22nd December, 1978 openly, peacefully and in hostile possession of the property to the knowledge of the plaintiff but no evidence, be it ocular or documentary, was placed on record by the defendant to prove that he has acquired titled by way adverse possession and plaintiff has no right title interest in the same 17. It is well settled law that to acquire title by adverse possession, one needs to prove that he is in hostile possession over the suit land which is known to the true owner. Whosoever claims adverse possession, he/she needs to prove that he/she is in continuous, open, peaceful and hostile possession, uninterrupted possession of the same without any hindrance that too to the knowledge of original owner. There must be overt act to suggest that he is in continuous possession of the suit land. While claiming the adverse possession, it is incumbent upon the party so claiming, to adequately plead the constituents of adverse possession. The hostile character of the possession is gauzed by the animus of the person setting up adverse possession but as has been observed above in the present case, there is nothing on record which suggests that defendant is in the adverse possession of the suit land. To prove adverse possession, it is necessary to prove that possession is peaceful, uninterrupted and hostile to the title of the actually true owner. To prove adverse possession, it is necessary to prove that possession is peaceful, uninterrupted and hostile to the title of the actually true owner. But in the present case, all the aforesaid ingredients are missing, rather, there is ample evidence available on record that defendant is encroacher upon the suit land. Hence, it could be safely concluded that defendant has not been having adverse possession of the suit land as has been claimed by him. The reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chati Konati Rao and Ors. V. Pale Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316 (Para-14), which is as under:- ?14. In view of the several authorities of this Court, few whereof have been referred above, what can safely be said that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The possession must be open and hostile enough so that it is known by the parties interested in the property. The plaintiff is bound to prove his title as also possession within 12 years and once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts on the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Claim by adverse possession has two basic elements i.e. the possession of the defendant should be adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. 15. Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and possession was open and undisturbed. The person who claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner and, hence, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. The courts always take unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding property rights. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.? 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while reiterating the above ingredients, has further held in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59 as under:- ?5. Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. [See Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1958), Arkansas Commemorative Commission v. City of Little Rock, 227 Ark. 1085, 303 S.W.2d 569 (1957); Monnot v. Murphy, 207 N.Y. 240, 100 N.E. 742 (1913); City of Rock Springs v. Sturm, 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908, 97 A.L.R. 1 (1929).] 6. Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depend on strong limitation statutes by operation of which right to access the court expires through efflux of time. As against rights of the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property. Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time, but also to vest the possessor with title. Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time, but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights, but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under claim of right or color of title. (See American Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, 2d, Page 81). It is important to keep in mind while studying the American notion of Adverse Possession, especially in the backdrop of Limitation Statutes, that the intention to dispossess cannot be given a complete go by. Simple application of Limitation shall not be enough by itself for the success of an adverse possession claim.? 19. Admittedly, in the instant case, present appellant has been not able to prove necessary ingredients as has been discussed above, to claim title by way of adverse possession and mere statement that he was in continuous possession of the land is not sufficient to claim title by way of adverse possession. Animus-possidendi as is well known ingredient of adverse possession. It is now well settled that mere possession of the land would not automatically convert into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true owner. 20. It clearly emerges from the judgment passed by the first appellate Court that the Tehsildar Chachiot was appointed as Local Commissioner , who as per directions of the Court conducted the demarcation of land in question twice and in his report unambiguously, stated that defendant has encroached upon the suit land bearing khasra No. 248/1 measuring 0-0-8 bighas. Since Court had appointed local Commissioner in the shape of Tehsildar Chachiot during the pendency of the appeal, this Court sees no force in contention on behalf of the appellant defendant that learned first appellate Court erred in not allowing the application moved by the defendant under Order 26 Rule 9. Once Court itself had appointed the Local Commissioner, it cannot be said that any prejudice or injustice was caused to the defendants by rejection the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 21. Once Court itself had appointed the Local Commissioner, it cannot be said that any prejudice or injustice was caused to the defendants by rejection the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 21. This Court is fully satisfied that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma?s case supra, wherein the Court has held as under:- ?16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.? 22. Consequently, In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court after perusing the entire evidence available on record is of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned courts below, rather perusal of impugned judgments suggests that same is based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Hence, the instant regular second appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.