JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J: Both the learned Courts below concurrently rendered a decree vis-a-vis the plaintiff qua mandatory injunction whereupon the defendants were mandated to hand over possession of licensed premises borne on Khasra Nos. 264, 257 and 258 situated in Chak Khalinda, Pergana Matiana, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. besides both the learned Courts below rendered qua the plaintiff a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any construction or carrying any construction on the existing construction. The defendants standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded verdicts of both the Courts below preferred herebefore the instant appeal whereby they concert to seek their reversal. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision in the instant appeal are that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of Khasra Nos. 264, 257 and 258 situated in Chak Kalinda to the extent of 3/4th share alongwith Kamlesh who is owner of 1/4th share. The defendants were co-villagers, who were in need of accommodation for their use. The plaintiff gave one room over Khasra No. 258 and three rooms over Khasra No. 257 to defendants as licensee. The defendants are in possession of four rooms as licensee. The plaintiff demanded the possession from the defendants but the defendants threatened to demolish the same and refused to handover the possession. The defendants have collected the construction material. Hence, it was prayed that defendants be restrained from raising the construction and be directed to handover the possession. 3. The suit is opposed by filing written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability, suit being barred for non joinder of necessary party and for misjoinder of cause of action. It was specifically denied that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 257 and 258. It was asserted that the father of the defendant No.1 constructed one single storeyed house over the land bearing Khasra No. 257 showing his hostile animus over the same. The possession of defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 is open, visible and hostile to the true owner. The defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 have become the owners of the land bearing Khasra No. 257 by way of adverse possession and the revenue entries are wrong. The defendant Bimla constructed three rooms in the year 1980 over Khasra No. 258. The defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 have become the owners of the land bearing Khasra No. 257 by way of adverse possession and the revenue entries are wrong. The defendant Bimla constructed three rooms in the year 1980 over Khasra No. 258. The possession of the defendants No.2 is continuous since 1980 and she has become the owner by way of adverse possession. The possession of the defendants was also found by the settlement staff. The plaintiff came to know about the revenue entries and wants to take advantage of the same. Therefore, a false suit has been filed. Therefore, it was prayed that this suit be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the possession of the defendants over the suit premises and land is that of licencee, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue NO.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of possession by way of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and cause of action? OPD. 6. Whether the defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 have perfected their title qua Khasra No.257 by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the defendant No. 2 has also perfected her title in respect of Khasra NO. 258 by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff 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 26/07/2007 this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- ?1. Whether the suit is governed exclusively Article 64 (old article 142) of the Limitation Act? 2. When the appeal came up for admission on 26/07/2007 this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- ?1. Whether the suit is governed exclusively Article 64 (old article 142) of the Limitation Act? 2. Whether the purchase of shares of other coshares except that Smt. Kamlesh contrary to the restrictions imposed vis-a-vis transfer of the said shares by way of sale, mortgage, gift, etc. incorporated in Revenue Record (Jamabandi) vide report No. 115 dated 13.11.1969 to the knowledge of the plaintiff respondent or her predecessor in interest perfects her title and possession as alleged and makes her competent to file the suit? 3. Whether plaintiff respondent can be deemed to be legally competent to create interest in the suit land by alleged delivery of possession as licensees of four rooms located in Khasra No. 257 and 258 thereof in view of Report No. 115 dated 13.11.1969 and the restriction on transfer imposed thereby? Substantial questions of law. 7. The premises existing upon the suit land contrarily stand contended by the litigating parties hereat qua the defendants' standing in the year 1992 inducted thereon as licensees whereas defendant No.1 espouses qua theirs acquiring/perfecting their title thereon by prescription arising from elapse hereat of the statutorily prescribed period of limitation commencing from the year 1950 whereat their predecessor in interest raised a construction thereon whereafter she contends qua hers continuously holding its possession of premises existing on Khasra No. 257. On the other hand the defendant No.2 has espoused qua construction standing raised by her upon Khasra No. 258 in the year 1980 whereafter she canvases of hers continuously since thereat upto date with a animus possidendi holding its possession whereupon with their statutorily prescribed period of time elapsing therefrom she espouses qua hers becoming its owner by adverse possession. Initially the veracity of DW-1 testify qua her predecessors in interest raising a construction in the year 1950 upon Khasra No. 257 is bereft of vigour especially when DW-3 testifies qua the father of defendant Surmi expiring about 45 to 46 years ago. Initially the veracity of DW-1 testify qua her predecessors in interest raising a construction in the year 1950 upon Khasra No. 257 is bereft of vigour especially when DW-3 testifies qua the father of defendant Surmi expiring about 45 to 46 years ago. Also with his testifying qua the predecessor in interest of defendant Surmi raising a construction upon Khasra No. 257 about 40 years back whereas with his rendering his testification in the year 2003 wherefrom on 40 years standing computed hitherto imperatively nails a conclusion of the father of defendant Surmi purportedly raising construction upon Khasra No. 257 not in the year 1950 as deposed by Surmi rather his purportedly raising construction thereon in the year 1963 whereupon reiteratedly he omits to lend succor to the deposition of DW-1 qua her predecessor in interest raising construction upon Khasra No. 257 in the year 1950. In aftermath, the aforesaid plea raised by defendant No.1 warrants its standing discountanced it remaining in the realm of unsubstantiation. Also defendant No.2 espouses qua hers raising a construction on Khasra No. 258 in the year 1980 factum whereof is in rife contradiction to the testimony of DW-1 wherein she testifies qua her predecessor in interest raising construction upon Khasra No. 257 in the year 1950. Moreover, the factum aforesaid espoused in the testification of defendant Bimla is ridden with a vice of in veracity significantly when she has omitted to recite the name of the mason who had constructed the house in the year 1980 on Khasra No. 258. 8. Be that as it may with defendant Surmi besides defendant Bimla abysmally failing to establish the factum of construction standing raised respectively by them upon Khasra No. 257 besides upon Khasra No. 258 respectively in the year 1950 and in the year 1980, concomitantly the assertion respectively made by them qua theirs since thereat holding with an animus possidendi, possession of the suit property cannot stand ingrained with any virtue of truth. The effect of the aforesaid failure on the part of the defendant Surmi besides on the part of defendant Bimla to establish the relevant factum aforesaid constrains a derivative qua their assertion qua theirs respectively since 1950 besides since 1980 commencing with an animus possidendi possession of the suit land wherefrom with the statutorily prescribed period of limitation elapsing therefrom upto date theirs hence perfecting their title thereto, not warranting acceptance. Fortification to the inference aforesaid stands marshaled by the fact of DW Surmi omitting to specifically recite the name of the owner of Khasra No. 257 and 258. Though DW-2 has testified qua the plaintiff holding ownership of the suit land nonetheless her testification qua the aforesaid facet is bereft of credence significantly when she has feigned ignorance qua the owners of houses adjacent thereto. Moreover with hers not assigning any special reason qua hers holding knowledge qua the plaintiff holding ownership of Khasra No. 257 and 258 renders her testification qua the plaintiff holding ownership of the suit land whereon the disputed premises stand raised to be susceptible to skepticism. In aftermath it is to be concluded with aplomb qua with both not holding knowledge qua the plaintiff holding ownership of the suit property whereas for theirs obtaining success in their espousal qua theirs acquiring title thereto by adverse possession the identity of the real owner whereagainst the apposite plea is canvassed is enjoined to emerge by adduction of invincible evidence, contrarily with non emergence of the identity of the true owner of the disputed suit property constrains a deduction qua the plea of adverse possession asserted by the defendants qua the suit property holding no vigour, it being speciously raised for want of the indispensable besides imperative ingredients for it to hold success embodied in upsurgence of the identity of the person whereagainst it is asserted, hence remaining unsatiated. 9. Uncontrovertedly, reflections stand borne in Ext.P-1 comprising the Jamabandi qua the suit property wherewithin unveilings occur qua the plaintiff being the owner of the suit property besides the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 shows the plaintiff to be the co-owner in possession of the suit property, likewise copy of Jamabandi qua the suit property comprised in Ext.P-4 pertaining to the year 1992-93 shows the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit property. Presumption of truth as carried by the aforesaid exhibits has remained uneroded also when for reasons aforesaid the plea of adverse possession reared by the defendants qua the suit property founders, the presumption of truth held by the reflections carried therewithin acquire conclusivity. Presumption of truth as carried by the aforesaid exhibits has remained uneroded also when for reasons aforesaid the plea of adverse possession reared by the defendants qua the suit property founders, the presumption of truth held by the reflections carried therewithin acquire conclusivity. Also the testification of the plaintiff qua the defendants standing inducted as licensees in the suit property in the year 1992 acquires corroborative vigour from the deposition of PW-2 besides when the testification of PW-2 on its wholesome appraisal holds credibility, it warrants its acceptance. 10. The learned trial Court on the issue of maintainability of the suit arising from lack of impleadment in the array of plaintiff other co-owners, had recorded thereon a finding adverse to the defendants, finding whereof stood anvilled upon pronouncements of this Court occurring in Ajmer Singh Vs. Shamsher Singh, AIR 1984, P&H 58 and Kanchna Vs. Bishan 2003 (3) SLJ 700 wherein a mandate is encapsulated qua a co-sharer holding entitlement as a plaintiff to institute a suit for injunction without his joining in the array of plaintiff the other coowners of the joint suit property. The aforesaid mandate encapsulated in the aforesaid verdict warrants reverence. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for relief of injunction is maintainable even without hers joining in the array of the co-plaintiffs other purported co-owners of the jointly recorded suit property. 11. The aforesaid mandate encapsulated in the aforesaid verdict warrants reverence. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for relief of injunction is maintainable even without hers joining in the array of the co-plaintiffs other purported co-owners of the jointly recorded suit property. 11. Be that as it may, since invincible evidence stands adduced qua under the purported report No. 115 of 13.11.1969 prepared by the Patwari concerned whereupon an interdiction stood cast upon the plaintiff to acquire the share of other co-owners in the suit property concomitantly when thereon she stood incapacitated to institute the suit against the defendants besides when it holds no tenacity its holding disconcurrence with the apposite rules, though imperatively warranted the learned trial Court to strike an apposite issue thereon whereas with the defendants at the time whereat the learned trial Court struck issues on the contentious pleadings of the litigating parties acquiescing qua the issues as stood struck for trial inter se the litigating parties rather is a vivid display of the defendants standing estopped to espouse herebefore qua on the aforesaid factum the concurrently recorded verdicts of both the Courts below warranting reversal also when any acceptance of the contention of the defendants anvilled thereupon would unnecessarily sequel a de novo trial of the suit despite the defendants at the apposite stage waiving the striking of the aforesaid issue (s) thereon by the learned trial Court. Contrarily thereupon on ground of estoppel arising from waiver forestalls on anvil thereof any argument in consonance therewith. 12. For reasons aforesaid this Court concludes with aplomb of the judgements and decrees of the Courts below standing sequelled by theirs appraising the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom it is obvious that the analysis of material on record by the learned Courts below not suffering from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather they have aptly appreciated the material available on record. I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgments and decrees of the both the Courts below are maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law stands answered against the defendants. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.