JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Regular Second Appeal stands directed by the defendants/appellants herein against the impugned rendition of the learned District Judge, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendants/appellants herein and affirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., whereby the latter Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendants/appellants herein stand aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Chamba. Theirs standing aggrieved, they have therefrom preferred the instant appeal before this Court for seeking from this Court an order reversing the findings recorded therein. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land comprising khata/khatauni No.39/54, khasra No.192, measuring 252-3 square yards situated in Mauza Kasba Chowari, Pargana Chowari, Tehsil Bhatiyat, District Chamba, H.P., alongwith proforma defendants No.3 and 4. The defendants are strangers to the suit land having no right, title or interest in the same. Land of the defendants comprising khasra No.193 is just adjacent to the suit land. Defendants have encroached upon the 49.0 sq. yards area of the suit land by raising structure and constructing sehan. Demarcation of the suit land was carried outon 27.05.2003 and it was found that defendants have encroached upon the khasra No. 192/1 measuring 49 sq. yards. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed for possession of 49 sq. yards of suit land, specifically khasra No.192/1. It has also been prayed that the suit be decreed for permanent prohibitory injunction and defendants be restrained from raising any further structure on the suit land. 3. Defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel and locus standi. On merits, it has been submitted that the demarcation report is illegal and the suit land has not been legally partitioned by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bhatiyat and it is not binding on the defendants. 4. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/appellants herein, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. 4. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/appellants herein, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit as alleged? OPD 7. Whether suit land has not been legally partitioned by the A.C. 1st Grade, if so, its effect, as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent herein/plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the appellants/defendants before the learned first Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal. 7. Now the defendants/appellants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgement and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 18.09.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted herbeforeby the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the Courts below have wrongly given undue weightage to the demarcation report Ex.DW3/A which is otherwise not liable to be admitted being based against the set provisions of law specially Instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, H.P. regarding conducting of demarcation? Substantial question of Law No.1: 8. The respective estates of the litigating parties adjoin each other. The best germane evidence for clinching the trite factum of the contesting defendants while raising construction upon their land contiguous to the land of the plaintiff, theirs also subjecting the land of the latter to construction, stands comprised in a demarcation report prepared by the demarcating officer concerned, in sequel, to his holding a valid demarcation of the contiguous estates of the parties at contest. The best evidence aforesaid stands comprised in Ex.PW3/A besides in Ex.PW3/B respectively comprising the demarcation report and the tatima, whereunder unravelments occur qua the extent of encroachment made by the defendants on the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. However, the mere factum of the relevant enunciations occurring therein would not per se imbue any sanctity to them unless evidence stands adduced qua the demarcating officer concerned while holding demarcation of the contiguous estates of the parties at lis, his revering the mandate of the apposite rules and instructions. For validating the apposite demarcation held by PW-3, enjoined upsurging of evidence qua his preceding his holding the relevant demarcation his obtaining the consent of the litigating parties qua the fixed points wherefrom he stood authorized to conduct the relevant demarcation proceedings. However, satiation qua the aforesaid mandate stands evidently unbegotten. Even if, PW-3, preceding his holding the relevant demarcation of the contiguous estates of the contesting parties hereat omitted to obtain their consent qua the fixed points wherefrom he stood authorised to hold the relevant demarcation would not per se negate nor invalidate his demarcation report comprised in Ex.PW3/A unless potent unflinching evidence stood adduced before the learned trial Court depicting qua his not at the relevant time holding the relevant musabi also evidence standing adduced qua his therefrom not holding the apposite measurements besides potent evidence displaying his thereafter not relaying onto the relevant fields the apposite measurements borrowed by him from the relevant musabi standing adduced. However, the aforesaid evidence is amiss. In aftermath, the findings recorded by the demarcating officer comprised in Ex.PW3/A and in Ex.PW3/B qua the defendants subjecting the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff to unauthorized construction do not suffer from any inherent infirmity. Also conclusivity to the relevant pronouncements made therein are acquired by the factum of the defendants, on Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B standing adduced into evidence before the learned trial Court not thereat ventilating their apposite objections thereto holding portrayals qua on account of the demarcating officer infracting the apposite mandate of the relevant rules and instructions, theirs holding no tenacity. The effect of theirs omitting to before the learned trial Court prefer objections to the validity of Ex.PW3/A besides to the validity of Ex.PW3/B begets an inference qua theirs acquiescing to the relevant unfoldments occurring therewithin. 9. The effect of theirs omitting to before the learned trial Court prefer objections to the validity of Ex.PW3/A besides to the validity of Ex.PW3/B begets an inference qua theirs acquiescing to the relevant unfoldments occurring therewithin. 9. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended with much vigour qua with the prescriptions held in the relevant rules and instructions qua the demarcating officer at the relevant time holding the relevant “musabi” standing infracted, infraction whereof arising from PW-3 voicing in his cross-examination qua his not at the relevant time holding the relevant “musabi” rather his holding the “momy”, hence, the tenacity of the relevant pronouncements occurring in Ex.PW3/A besides in Ex.PW3/B suffering erosion, whereupon he contends qua the relevant concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below warranting theirs being set aside. However, the aforesaid submission lacks force or vigour arising from the factum of though the relevant rules prescribe qua the demarcating officer at the relevant time holding the relevant “musabi” yet the mere factum of his thereat not holding the relevant “musabi” rather his holding the “momy” which too carries replications of all the relevant reflections occurring in the “musabi” whereupon obviously the “momy” alike the “musabi” purveys leverage to the demarcating officer to borrow therefrom all the relevant measurements of the relevant fields, would not erode the efficacy of Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B unless forthright evidence stood adduced qua the “momy” carried at the relevant time by the demarcating officer not therein replicating the relevant manifestations borne on the relevant “musabi”. However, when no evidence stood adduced qua the “momy” carried at the relevant time by the demarcating officer not replicating the relevant manifestations occurring in the apposite “musabi” constrains an inference qua the “momy” holding omnibus affinity with the “musabi” qua all the relevant manifestations also leads to a deduction qua the demarcating officer borrowing therefrom the relevant measurements , whereafter he relayed them onto the relevant fields, significantly, when no evidence to bely the aforesaid inference stood adduced by the defendants/appellants before the learned trial Court whereupon immense teancity stands acquired by Ex.PW3/A. 10. With this Court concluding qua the pronouncements occurring in Ex.PW3/A besides in Ex.PW3/B not standing bereft of tenacity, it is appropriate to adjudicate the submission addressed herebefore by the counsel for the defendants/appellant, anvilled upon the pronouncement made by this Court in RSA No.390 of 2002, titled as Prem Chand and others versus Kesho Ram and others, decided on 10.01.2013, whereupon, this Court after validating the relevant pronouncements occurring in the relevant demarcation report proceeded to in substitution of it rendering a decree of demolition of the structure raised by the delinquent litigant upon the land, owned and possessed by the persons aggrieved by the errant conduct of the delinquent, rendered a decree of compensation vis-a-vis the plaintiffs therein. A close reading of the pronouncement of this Court recorded in the aforesaid rendition unveils (a) the factum qua raising of construction by the defendant (s) on the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff (s) not begetting an inference of the latter acquiescing or abandoning or waiving his rights thereon unless evidence stood adduced in display of his despite knowing the factum of the defendant raising construction on land owned and possessed by him yet his permitting the defendants to raise construction thereon; (b) the demarcation report alone comprising the relevant best evidence also it constituting the relevant material wherefrom the relevant knowledge emanates qua the defendant (s) encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff (s) also no inference qua earlier thereto the plaintiff (s) deriving knowledge qua the defendant (s) raising construction upon the land owned and possessed by him/them can stand imputed to the plaintiff (s) nor also earlier thereto any inference being erectable qua the plaintiff (s) acquiescing besides abandoning or waiving his/their rights qua the land owned and possessed by him/them whereon construction stood raised by the defendant (s), whereupon the principle of waiver for estopping him/them to agitate his/their relevant grievance is unavailable for erection vis-a-vis the plaintiff (s) merely for his/their failing to make prompt concerts holding contemporaneity in timing vis-a-vis the the stage of raising of construction by the defendant (s). 11. With the mandate encapsulated in a decision reported in Dr. 11. With the mandate encapsulated in a decision reported in Dr. Abdul Khair versus Miss Shella Myrtla James and another, AIR 1957, Patna, 308, the relevant paragraph 15 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, wherewithin the trite expostulation of law stands expounded qua the relief for compensation to the aggrieved plaintiff (s) in substitution to the rendition of a decree of demolition of the unauthorized construction raised by the defendant (s) upon his/their land being unamenable for standing pronounced by Courts of law, constrains this Court to not accept the submission addressed herebefore by the counsel for the defendants/appellants qua this Court modifying the concurrently recorded verdicts of both the Courts below by its awarding damages qua the plaintiffs. Relevant paragraph No.15 reads as under : “ (15) the next important question for consideration is, is the decree for compensation in lieu of the ejectment, awarded by the first court of appeal, which has been affirmed by Mr. Justice Misra, correct in law. IN my opinion such a decree is contrary to law. When the first court of appeal found in agreement with the first court, that the land in question belonged to the plaintiff, such being the findings as to the property in the land, the courts could not compel the plaintiff to part with his legal rights and accept compensation against will, howsoever reasonable it might appear to be. A similar question came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in two cases,- 'Govind Vankaji Kulkarni v. Sadashiv Bharma Shet', ILR Bom 771 (L); and – Jethalal Hirachand v. Lalbhai', ILR 28 BOM 298 (M). In the latter case, in which the first case was affirmed Chandavarkar J., while considering the finding of the learned District Judge that the plaintiff was entitled to no more than compensation, because there has been on the part of the defendant a technical encroachment in as much as a foot or so of the plaintiff ground had been taken to support the wall which divided the properties of the parties observed: “But if the foot or so of ground so taken by the defendant belongs to the plaintiff the act of the defendant is one of continuous trespass on the plaintiff's property and the wrongdoer cannot be heard to say that he has deprived the owner of only a little and that of not much use to the latter. Too allow such a defence and on the strength of it award compensation is to let a trespasser put a value of money's worth on another man's property and deprive him of its against his will”. His Lordship went on further to observe: “But where a man builds on another man's property against the will of the latter or without his consent, the invasion, is practically one where pecuniary compensation cannot be regarded as not only deprived of the property be he is also entitled to make. How are the damages to be estimated in such a case and and how can it be said that an award of compensation can do justice to the owner who leases the property, and all opportunity besides of using it for purposes which he may consider profitable, on beneficial to himself.” His Lordship for the above principle relied (N). I respectfully agree with his Lordship Chandavarkar J., with his above statement of law on the subject, and consider that his Lordship has laid down the correct statement of law on the point. Relief by way of compensation in such a case is tantamount to allowing a trespasser to purchase another man's property against that man's will. On no principle of law or equity is that allowable. In my opinion therefore, the second question posed by me must also be answered in the negative by saying that the plaintiff cannot in law or equity be awarded compensation in lieu of ejectment to which he is legally entitled. His right to recover the encroached land arises out of his ownership and he is no t estopped, either by acquiescence or waiver, to estopped by conduct from claiming his right to possession.” 12. Even otherwise, even if, assuming the aforesaid manner of redressing the grievance of the plaintiff/aggrieved holds any legal weight, it was enjoined upon the defendant (s) to raise it earlier before the Courts below also they stood enjoined to adduce evidence qua the value borne by the suit land whereon unauthorised construction stands raised by them, significantly, when it would facilitate this Court to record an order qua the quantum of damages assessable vis-a-vis the plaintiff (s). However, for lack of aforesaid concerts earlier hereto by the defendants/appellants does not empower them to espouse herebefore qua this Court in the manner aforesaid modifying the concurrently recorded decrees of demolition of the unauthorised construction raised by the defendants upon the suit land owned and possessed by the plaintiff (s). 13. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against defendants/appellants herein. 14. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.