JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Both the learned Courts below recorded concurrent verdicts vis-a-vis. the plaintiffs qua theirs standing entitled to a decree for fixing of boundaries by way of demarcation also both the learned Courts below concurrently rendered a decree for possession by way of demolition of the construction raised on the suit land by the defendants. In sequel thereto with the defendants/appellants herein standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded verdicts of both the Courts below, they through the instant appeal preferred therefrom before this Court concert to seek reversal of the pronouncements recorded by the learned Courts below. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision in the instant appeal are that the plaintiffs had claimed for fixation of boundaries by way of demarcation with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from making any type of interference, changing the nature, raising construction cutting and removing the trees from the land comprised in Khata No. 41, Khatoni No. 53 min, Khasra No. 72 as described in the copy of Misal Hakiat for the year 1997-98, situated in Village Thain, Mouza Nauhangi and in case the defendants succeed in raising construction over the suit land or any part of it or taking possession of any portion of it, in that event a decree for possession by way of demolition or otherwise was claimed and further the plaintiffs by way of amendment claimed a decree for possession of land shown in Tatima as Khasra No. 72/2 out of the suit land. The said reliefs had been claimed by the plaintiffs on the grounds that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land, whereas the defendants are quite stranger to the same but the defendants started interference over the suit land by way of digging for the purpose of raising construction, threatened dispossession of the plaintiffs, created boundary dispute and refused to desist from such wrongful acts inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiffs and during the pendency of the suit on the strength of demarcation of Local Commissioner the defendants were found to have encroached upon Khasra No. 72/2 out of the suit land shown in the Tatima, but refused to deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs, hence they were compelled to file the suit and claimed the said reliefs. 3. 3. The defendants resisted and contested the suit by taking preliminary objection qua estoppel and claimed ownership by virtue of adverse possession. On merits, the defendants pleaded that they are owners in possession of the adjoining land. It was pleaded that they are in open, peaceful and hostile possession of the suit land under their Abadi or its portion for the last 100 years, hence they have become its owner by virtue of adverse possession and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for fixation of boundaries by way of demarcation and also prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and for possession if the defendants succeed in raising construction during the pendency of the suit as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct? OPD. 4. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD. 5. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession as prayed for? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD. 7. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs besides the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred therefrom before it by the defendants. 6. Now the defendants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 17/04/2007 this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the findings given by the learned Courts below are perverse, their being either based on no evidence or contrary to the material on record and the same has thus resulted into erroneous decision? 2. When the appeal came up for admission on 17/04/2007 this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the findings given by the learned Courts below are perverse, their being either based on no evidence or contrary to the material on record and the same has thus resulted into erroneous decision? 2. Whether the demarcation report Ext.PW-2/A is contrary to the instructions of the Financial Commissioner and the High Court Rules and orders pertaining to the demarcation of the land and the same has wrongly been relied upon by both the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgements and decrees? 3. Whether the adjoining land of the appellants comprising Khasra Nos.73 and 77 to the suit land Khasra No. 72 could be ignored to be measured by the Local Commissioner while demarcating the suit land, if no, whether the report of the Local Commissioner is unsustainable and could not be relied upon while passing the impugned judgements and decrees by both the Courts below? Substantial questions of law. 7. Khasra No. 72 stands owned and possessed by the plaintiffs whereas Khasra numbers adjoining thereto bearing field Nos. 73 and 77 stand owned by the defendants appellants. The decree concurrently pronounced by the learned Courts below stand anvilled upon demarcation report proven by PW-2. Demarcation report stands comprised in Ext.PW-2/A, the tatima prepared in consonance therewith stands comprised in Ext.PW-2/B wherewithin reflections occur of the defendants unauthorisedly holding possession of 132 sq.meters held in the suit land. Both the learned Courts below imputed sanctity to the demarcation report comprised in Ext.PW-2/A wherefrom they recorded a conclusion of the plaintiffs standing entitled to the decree as stood rendered qua them. Consequently, the factum of the tenacity of pronouncements occurring in Ext.PW-2/A besides the vigour of reflections communicated in Ext.PW-2/B is enjoined to be determined. Both the learned Courts below imputed sanctity to the demarcation report comprised in Ext.PW-2/A wherefrom they recorded a conclusion of the plaintiffs standing entitled to the decree as stood rendered qua them. Consequently, the factum of the tenacity of pronouncements occurring in Ext.PW-2/A besides the vigour of reflections communicated in Ext.PW-2/B is enjoined to be determined. Both would enjoy formidable probative sinew despite an abortive concert standing made by the demarcating officer concerned qua theirs preceeding his holding the apposite demarcation proceedings theirs recording before him a consensus qua the fixed points wherefrom he held authorization to conduct the relevant demarcation predominantly when his apposite report besides his testification hold a visible display of his while holding the relevant demarcation his thereat possessing the field Map/Musabee of the village concerned holding therewithin reflections of the relevant fields alongwith their dimensions (Karu kans) besides his unanimously voicing in his report also in his testification qua his therefrom in consonance with the relevant instructions measuring their dimensions, lastly his articulating in his report besides in his testification qua his therefrom thereafter proceeding to relay the relevant measured dimensions held in the relevant field Map/Musabee onto the contiguous khasra numbers of the litigating parties qua which he held demarcation. However, the aforesaid invincible display stands omitted to be bespoken by PW-2 in his demarcation report comprised in Ext.PW-2/A also stands unechoed by him in his testification. Besides the preemptory mandate of the relevant instructions which stand encapsulated in Chapter 10 paragraph IX of the H.P.Land Records Manual, which stands extracted hereinafter, :- “IX. In the report to be prepared/submitted by the Revenue Officer/Field Kanungo, it must be explained in detail how he made his measurement. He should submit a copy of the relevant portion of the last settlement field map (musavi) of the village showing the fields with their dimensions (Karu Kan) of which he took measurement as mentioned in instructions supra and the boundary in dispute. There should also be a mention in this report as to what method was adopted and the way he fixed the starting points and the fields he measured and the result of such measurement. There should also be a mention in this report as to what method was adopted and the way he fixed the starting points and the fields he measured and the result of such measurement. All the fields and points measured should be shown in the site plans, within the frame of copy of musavi.” enjoining the demarcating officer to at the relevant time hold the relevant portion of the field map of the village concerned holding reflections of the relevant fields besides their dimensions wherefrom he stands enjoined to in consonance with the relevant instructions hold the relevant measurement of their dimensions whereafter he stands mandatorily injucted to thereafter relay them onto the relevant fields, for reasons aforestated is visibly infracted. Since the mandate held in the relevant portion of the H.P. Land Records Manual, relevant portion whereof stands extracted herebefore, is preemptory also when the relevant mandate enjoins strict compliance therewith by the demarcating officer, in sequel any departure therefrom renders the relevant demarcation held by PW-2 to be legally frail also any reliance thereupon by both the learned Courts below especially when its preparation is evidently in digression of the relevant mandate of the relevant instructions which stands extracted hereinabove, is grossly unwarranted. 8. 8. However, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has contended of with the defendants voicing in their respective testifications qua theirs perfecting their title to the suit land by adverse possession, plea whereof for concurrently recorded tenable reasons stood dispelled by both the Courts below, significantly for theirs (a) omitting to spell with certainty the date of its commencement, besides the territorial extent whereon they adversely held the suit land contrarily rather with DW-1 and DW-2 contradictorily testifying qua the territorial extent of the suit land whereon they propagate qua theirs adversely holding it rendered their espousal on facet aforesaid to remain unsatiated reiteratedly when (b) the commencement of the period with an apposite communication with precision qua the time since whereon they asserted qua theirs holding possession of the suit land with an animus possidendi remaining unpleaded besides untestified whereupon they stood disabled to espouse qua theirs hereat completing the mandatorily enjoined period of limitation prescribed in the relevant statute for theirs standing construed to perfect their title qua the suit land (c) DW-1 and DW-2 evidently contradictorily deposing qua the territorial extent of the suit land whereon they espoused qua theirs becoming owners by adverse possession, wherefrom an inference is erectable qua theirs acquiescing qua the defendants holding possession of the suit land rendering hence the vice if any gripping the report of the Local Commissioner comprised in Ext.PW2/A being overlookable. However, the aforesaid submission addressed herebefore by the counsel for the plaintiffs is unamenable for acceptance by this Court conspicuously when both aforesaid DW-1 and DW-2 contradictorily depose qua the territorial extent of the suit land whereupon they stake a claim qua theirs perfecting their title by statutory prescription whereas occurrence with precision in their respective testifications qua the apposite territorial extent of the suit land whereon they asserted qua theirs perfecting their title thereon by adverse possession was imperative for hence affirmatively facilitating their apposite espousal. In aftermath with lack of concurrence inter se DW-1 and DW-2 qua the territorial extent whereupon they purportedly hold adverse possession of the suit land would naturally interdict a Civil Court to with aplomb pronounce an apposite decree holding revelations with precision besides exactitude vis.a.vis the area whereon the suit land stands unauthorisedly held by the defendants also lack of specificity with unanimity in the respective depositions of DW-1 and DW-2 qua the relevant facet aforesaid would prohibit a Civil Court to render an apposite decree qua thereupon the defendants standing encumbered with an apposite decree. However, both the learned Courts below despite conflicts occurring in the testifications of DW-1 and DW-2 qua the territorial extent of theirs adversely holding possession of the suit land also with demarcation report comprised in Ext.PW-2/A though apparently infracting the mandate of the relevant extracted portion of the apposite instructions, they yet proceed to inaptly pronounce the impugned decree hereat which obviously is ridden with a gross inherent fallacy. 9. Be that as it may, an apposite decree holding embodiments therein with precision qua the area whereon the defendants unauthorizedly hold possession of the suit land was renderable only when a valid demarcation was held of the suit property by the demarcating officer besides of the khasra numbers in contiguity thereof owned by the defendants. However, when for reasons aforestated PW-2 did not hold any valid demarcation of the suit property besides of the Khasra Numbers located in contiguity thereof, there was no worthwhile material available before both the Courts below to emphatically pronounce qua the area/dimensions reflected therein constituting the area of the suit land whereon the defendants unauthorisedly hold possession. The corollary thereof is of the concurrently recorded apposite decrees by both the Courts below suffering from an inherent fallibility. 10. Be that as it may for facilitating the rendition of an efficacious decree holding delineations therein with specificity qua the area whereon the suit land stands subjected to encroachment by the defendants also for conclusively clinching/resting the controversy engaging the parties at lis, it is deemed fit and appropriate to remand the matter to the learned First Appellate Court for facilitating it to appoint the Tehsildar concerned of the area wherewithin suit land is located for holding demarcation of the suit property. However the learned first Appellate Court after receiving the demarcation report besides after considering the objections filed thereto by the contesting parties shall pronounce a fresh decision only qua the area of the suit land encroached upon by the defendants within six months hereafter. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendants. The judgements and decrees rendered by both the Courts below are quashed and set-aside. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. However, as aforestated, in the interest of justice and also for perennially setting at rest the controversy engaging the parties at lis, it is deemed fit and appropriate to remand the matter to the learned First Appellate Court for facilitating it to appoint the Tehsildar concerned of the area wherewithin suit land is located for holding demarcation of the suit property. However the learned first Appellate Court after receiving the demarcation report besides after considering the objections filed thereto by the contesting parties shall pronounce a fresh decision only qua the area of the suit land encroached upon by the defendants within six months hereafter.