JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer), Fast Track Court, Solan Camp at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh, whereby the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the `plaintiffs”) has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerged from the record, are that appellants-plaintiffs are legal heirs of original plaintiff Kishori Lal, who died during the pendency of the suit. It is averred in the plaint that the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was for declaration that he had become owner of suit property comprised in Khasra Nos.926, 927, 928, 1058 and 1059, measuring 421.71 sq.mtrs. and plot comprised in Khasra No.1051, measuring 26.25 sq.meters, situated in up-Mohal New Nalagarh by abandonment, alternatively by adverse possession. 3. It is averred in the plaint that respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants”) are the progeny of Nand Karan who might be living in Nalagarh Town and his share might have been devolved in favour of his heirs, if any. It is further averred that Dwarka Dass, Piara Lal and Sukhdev were seen by deceased plaintiff Kishori Lal. They were Gautam Brahmins and predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was also stated to be Gautam Brahmin. The aforesaid Dwarka Dass, Piara Lal and Sukhdev left Nalagarh Town before the partition of the country and settled in Delhi and when left Nalagarh, they handed over the property to predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs i.e. Kishori Lal and asked him to construct his house etc. Consequently, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs constructed his house over the suit property by spending huge amount and started living there. But, when after 2-3 years all the aforesaid persons namely; Dwarka Dass, Piara Lal and Sukhdev came back and saw the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs living in the house upon the suit property, which was constructed by him in the year 1951 and which construction was within their knowledge, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs proclaimed himself to be owner in possession of the said property because from 1951 till date neither the aforesaid persons during their life time nor their progeny ever objected the same. 4. 4. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants were not born in Nalagarh and have neither Ration Card nor names in the Voter List, whereas the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs lived in the house over the suit land and has electric meter and water connection since 1962 in the name of his son Ashok Kumar. It is further averred that the possession of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs has also been recognized and recorded in the settlement record by Settlement Officer at the time of Settlement of the town. The entry in the revenue record in the column of ownership is nothing but since the names were continuing so it continued and no interference was made in this column of ownership by Settlement Authority. The fact remains that predecessor-in-interest of defendants never interfered in the possessary rights of plaintiffs. 5. It is further averred in the plaint that the value of the land during the year 1948 was not more than 48 to 50 rupees and relations between both the families were cordial. The owners abandoned this property in favour of deceased plaintiff Kishori Lal on 26 Bhadhon of Bikrami year 2004 corresponding to the year 1948. In the aforesaid background the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs filed a civil suit. 6. Defendants, by way of filing written statement, resisted and contested the claim of the plaintiffs. They also filed counter claim against the plaintiffs. In the written statement, defendants admitted the possession of Kishori Lal over land measuring 421-71 sq.mtrs., but denied the plea of abandonment. It was pleaded that house of Kishori Lal had collapsed and in the year 1958 he was allowed by the then owners to occupy two rooms in the house situated over Khasra Nos.926, 927, 928, 1058 and 1059, total land measuring 421-71 sq.mtrs. as licensee till he was not able to construct his own house. Now, with the death of Kishori Lal, the license stands extinguished. It is averred by the defendants that no construction was made by Kishori Lal over this land. 7. As regards land comprised in Khasra No.1051 measuring 26.25 sq.mtrs. it is averred that Kishori Lal had never been in possession of this land. The defendants-respondents filed counter claim for possession of suit property measuring 421.71sq.mtrs. They prayed for injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from changing the nature of this land and from demolishing the structure. 7. As regards land comprised in Khasra No.1051 measuring 26.25 sq.mtrs. it is averred that Kishori Lal had never been in possession of this land. The defendants-respondents filed counter claim for possession of suit property measuring 421.71sq.mtrs. They prayed for injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from changing the nature of this land and from demolishing the structure. Qua Khasra No.1051, defendants sought an injunction to restrain plaintiffs from disposing of the same. In the aforesaid background the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs filed replication-cum-written statement to the counter claim, whereby the averments of the plaint are re-asserted and that of counter claim are denied. It is pleaded that Kishori Lal during his life time raised construction which was never objected and even if the plea of licensee taken by defendants does not sustain since licence has become irrevocable in view of the fact that Kishori Lal was allowed to raise construction on this land. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether predecessor-in-title of defendants have abandoned the rights qua suit property in favour of plaintiff, if so, its effect? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has acquired title qua the suit land by way of adverse possession in the alternative? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled qua correction of revenue record visà- vis injunction, as prayed? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his admission, acts and omission? OPD. 8. Whether deceased Kishori Lal was a licensee in possession over the suit property, as alleged? OP-Counter Claimants 9. Whether Counter claimants are entitled for the relief of possession qua suit land, as prayed? OP-Counter Claimants 10. Whether counter claimants are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OP-Counter Claimants 11. Whether there is no cause of action for filing counter-claim, as alleged? OPP. 12. Whether the counter claim is not maintainable? OPP. 13. Relief.” 10. Whether Counter claimants are entitled for the relief of possession qua suit land, as prayed? OP-Counter Claimants 10. Whether counter claimants are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OP-Counter Claimants 11. Whether there is no cause of action for filing counter-claim, as alleged? OPP. 12. Whether the counter claim is not maintainable? OPP. 13. Relief.” 10. Learned trial Court vide common judgment and decree dated 30.03.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and decreed the counter claim filed by the defendants. 11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed and counter claim by the defendants-respondents were decreed, appellants-plaintiffs filed an appeal assailing therein judgment and decree dated 30.03.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Solan camp at Nalagarh. 12. Learned Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Solan, Camp at Nalagarh vide judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006 dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Learned first appellate Court also affirmed the decree passed by the learned trial Court in the counter claim. 13. In the aforesaid background, the present appellants-plaintiffs filed this Regular Second Appeal before this Court, details whereof have already been given above. 14. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “ (1) When the defendants-respondents admitted the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants over the suit land and also acknowledged the plaintiffs-appellants having raised permanent structure long before the institution of suit and counter claim, have not both the Courts below acted in excess of their jurisdiction in decreeing the counter claim granting decree for possession to the defendants-respondents by dismantling the structure of the plaintiffs by ignoring from consideration the provisions of Specific Relief Act, whereby it was imperative for the Courts below to have seen the feasibility of compensating the defendants in terms of money? 2. When the defendants themselves set up a case of creation of license in favour of the plaintiffs and admitted the raising of permanent structures by the plaintiffs over the suit property, was not the same resulted in creation of permanent license as per the provisions of Section 60 of the Easement Act? 2. When the defendants themselves set up a case of creation of license in favour of the plaintiffs and admitted the raising of permanent structures by the plaintiffs over the suit property, was not the same resulted in creation of permanent license as per the provisions of Section 60 of the Easement Act? Have not both the Courts below acted with material illegality and irregularity in mechanically passing the decree for possession by removal of structures when the defendants or their predecessors never revoked the alleged license and acaquiesced in the acts of the plaintiffs in raising permanent structures over the suit land? 3. Whether both the Courts below have committed grave error of jurisdiction in granting the decree for possession by dismantling the structures by ignoring the fact that the counter claim filed by the defendants-respondents was beyond the period of limitation, as per the facts established on the record? 4. Whether findings of both the Courts below that plaintiffs-appellants have failed to prove that adverse possession are the result of misreading of Ex.DA and other documents which were inadmissible in evidence and further failing to consider that the presumption attached to the revenue entries stood duly rebutted on account of rival claim put forth by the parties. Have not both the Courts below committed grave error of law in misconstruing and misapplying correct principles of law while deciding the issue of adverse possession? 5. Whether both the Courts below have acted with material illegality in not property appreciating the contention put forth by the plaintiffs regarding abandonment of the right by the predecessor-in-interest of defendants-respondents in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants when the value of the property in suit at the relevant time was less than Rs.100 and for creation of such right no registered document was required? 6. When the counter claim filed by the defendants-respondents was not in consonance with the provisions of Code of Civil procedure and valuation, are not the judgments and decrees passed b y both the Courts below illegal, erroneous and perverse and stand vitiated?” 15. At this stage, it may be noticed that today i.e. on 27th December, 2016, when this matter was listed before this Court,attention of Mr. At this stage, it may be noticed that today i.e. on 27th December, 2016, when this matter was listed before this Court,attention of Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, representing the appellants-plaintiffs was invited towards the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajni Rani and Anothr versus Khairati Lal and Others, (2015)2 SCC 682 and Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala vs. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala and others, AIR 1964 SC 11 , which was further followed by this Court while dismissing RSA No.293 of 2006, titled as Piar Chand & Others versus Ranjeet Singh & Others, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while dismissing the counter claim, Court may or may not draw a formal decree but if rights are finally adjudicated, it would assume the status of a decree and same needs to be laid challenge, if any, by way of filing separate appeal affixing required court fee. 16. In view of aforesaid law having been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court deemed it fit to frame additional substantial question of law for proper adjudication of the case at hand. The additional substantial question of law is as under: “1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court has erred in entertaining the composite appeal having been preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and decreeing the counter claim preferred by the defendants-respondents that too without affixing separate/ requisite court fee as far as counter claim is concerned.” 17. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently argued that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Gupta, further contended that bare perusal of the of the judgments passed by both the Courts below suggests that evidence led on record by the appellants-plaintiffs has not been read in its right perspective and as such, great prejudice has been caused to the appellants-plaintiffs against whom decree for possession has been passed. 18. Mr. Mr. Gupta, further contended that bare perusal of the of the judgments passed by both the Courts below suggests that evidence led on record by the appellants-plaintiffs has not been read in its right perspective and as such, great prejudice has been caused to the appellants-plaintiffs against whom decree for possession has been passed. 18. Mr. Gupta, while making his submission qua the additional issue having been framed by this Court, contended that genuine and legitimate claim of the appellants-plaintiffs cannot be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities and this Court has wide power to ignore such technicalities and can proceed ahead to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties to do substantive justice in the matter. Mr. Gupta, further claimed that the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs decreed the counter claim of the defendants-respondents and appellants-plaintiffs rightly preferred composite appeal against the same before the learned District Judge laying challenge therein to the composite decree passed in the suit as well as in the counter claim in favour of the defendants. He further contended that no appeal, if any, could be filed without there being any decree and as such, appellants-plaintiffs had no option but to file composite appeal against the impugned judgment and decree, whereby suit of the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed and counter claim of the defendants-respondents was decreed. 19. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Gupta, strenuously argued that the counter claim filed by the defendants-respondents deserve to be dismissed after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta, also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Narhari and others vs. Shanker and others, AIR 1953 S.C.419, Gangadhar and another vs. Shri Raj Kumar, AIR (1983) Supreme Court 1202, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders welfare Association (2) versus S.C.Sekar and others (2009)2 Supreme Court Cases 784 and B.S. Sheshagiri Setty and others versus State of Karnataka and others (2016)2 Supreme Court Cases 123. 20. Mr. Gupta,Learned Senior Counsel, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence as well as law on point. Mr. 20. Mr. Gupta,Learned Senior Counsel, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence as well as law on point. Mr. Gupta contended that bare perusal of impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court suggests that the same is based on conjectures and surmises and learned first appellate Court has fallen in grave error while affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court that too on the very flimsy grounds. 21. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondentsdefendants, supported the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court. Mr. Sharma, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court suggests that the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, by this Court especially in view of the concurrentfindings of fact recorded by the Court below. He further contended that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajni Rani and another vs. Khairati Lal and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 682 , which was further followed by this Court while passing judgment dated 16.9.2016 in RSA No.293 of 2006.Mr. Sharma also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala vs. Nanabhai Chunilala Kabrawala and others, AIR 1964 SC 11 . 22. Mr. Sharma, while concluding his arguments, further contended that apart from above, this Court has very limited power while exercising power under Section 100 CPC to reappreciate the evidence and as such, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 , herein below: “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. 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.” 23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 24. Keeping in view the specific objection with regard to maintainability having been raised by the appellants-plaintiffs in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court deems it fit to take additional substantial question of law framed by this Court at first instance for adjudication. 25. Perusal of the counter claim filed on behalf of the defendants-respondents suggests that while filing written statement they asserted counter claim but fact remains that no requisite fee was paid on the aforesaid counter claim. The appellants-plaintiffs denied the aforesaid counter claim of the respondents-defendants terming the same to be false and claimed that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants-plaintiffs as claimed in the counter claim. 26. Careful perusal of the trial court record further suggests that appellants-plaintiffs refuted the aforesaid counter claim of the respondents-defendants by way of replication as well as by filing separate written statement. However, the fact remains that learned trial Court after framing issues, as have been reproduced above, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and decreed the cross-objection having been filed by the respondents-defendants. However, the fact remains that learned trial Court after framing issues, as have been reproduced above, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and decreed the cross-objection having been filed by the respondents-defendants. Operative part of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court clearly suggests that the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs, whereas decreed the counter claim of ownership and possession preferred on behalf of the respondents-defendants. Careful perusal of the decree sheet available on record suggests that decree for possession was passed in favour of the respondents-defendants and against the appellants-plaintiffs. 27. Careful perusal of the decree, as referred, hereinabove, suggests as follows:- “The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussions and findings is that the plaintiff failed to establish the claim. Accordingly, suit stands dismissed, however, counter claimants are successful and counter claim stands decreed with cost. They are entitled for decree of possession qua the suit property comprised in Khewat/Khatauni Nos.141/185 bearing Khasra No.926, 927, 928, 1058 and 1059, total measuring 421.71 sq.mtrs alongwith house which was on licence with deceased plaintiff and further L.R.'s of deceased plaintiff are directed to surrender and handover the possession to the counter-claimants. However, they are at liberty to take material of so stated existing construction of kitchen, bathroom, latrine over suit property after putting counter-claimants in possession of the suit property by dismantling the said structure at their own cost. Consequently, a decree for injunction is also passed in favour of the counter-claimants as prayed.” 28. Perusal of aforesaid decree prepared by the learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit and accepting the counter claim of the defendants, clearly suggests that proper decree was drawn as far as acceptance of the counter claim filed by the defendants is concerned. 29. Appellants-plaintiffs, being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, approached the learned District Judge by way of an appeal under Section 96 CPC laying therein challenge to aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 29. Appellants-plaintiffs, being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, approached the learned District Judge by way of an appeal under Section 96 CPC laying therein challenge to aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce cause title/ head note of appeal preferred by the appellantsplaintiffs before the learned District Judge, which reads thus:- “Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2005 passed by the learned trial court Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh in a civil suit No.230/1 of 1999 and counter claim No.55/1 of 2004, titled as Kishori Lal v ersus Sumati Devi and others, whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed and the counter claim of the respondents/defendants/ counter claimants has been decreed with costs.” 30. Careful perusal of aforesaid cause title as well as relief claimed in the appeal clearly suggests that appellants-plaintiffs before the learned first appellate Court prayed that the appeal filed by them be accepted with costs and the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2005 passed by learned trial Court be set aside, but there is no prayer, if any, for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby counter claim filed by the defendantsrespondents have been decreed and they were declared owners in possession of the suit property. 31. Before adverting to the submissions having been made on behalf of the learned counsel representing both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to relevant provisions of law applicable in the present case i.e. Order 8 Rule 6A: “6A. Counter claim by defendant - (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. (2) Such counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the court. (4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.” 32. Aforesaid provisions of law entitles defendant in a suit to set up counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff in respect of cause of action accruing to him against the plaintiff either before or after filing the suit, but definitely before defendant files his defence or before the time stipulated for delivering the defence is expired. Needless to say that aforesaid right of filing counter claim is in addition to his right of pleading as set up in Rule 6. Further perusal of aforesaid provisions of law suggests that counter claim, if any, filed on behalf of the defendant would be treated as a plaint and same would be governed by Rules applicable to the plaint. Similarly, counter claims filed on behalf of the defendant would have same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and the counter claim. 33. Similarly, Rule 6A (3) enables the plaintiff to file a written statement, if any, to the counter claim filed by the defendant. Rule 6D specifically provides that in case suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter claim filed on behalf of the defendant would nevertheless be proceeded with. 34. Similarly, Rule 6E provides that if plaintiff fails to file reply to the counter claim made by the defendant, the Court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter-claim made against him/her, or make such order in relation to the counter-claim as it deems fit. It would be relevant here to refer to Order VIII Rule 6F: “6F. It would be relevant here to refer to Order VIII Rule 6F: “6F. Relief to defendant where counter-claim succeeds.- Where in any suit a set-off or counter-claim is established as a defence against the plaintiffs claim and any balance is found due to the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be , the Court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance.” 35. Perusal of aforesaid Order VIII Rule 6F clearly suggests that where in any suit a set-off or counter claim is established as a defence against the plaintiffs' claim and any balance is found due to the plaintiff or the defendant, Court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance. Further perusal of Order VIII Rule 6G suggests that no pleadings, if any, subsequent to the written statement filed by a defendant other than by way of defence to set up a claim can be presented except with the leave of Court. 36. Under Order VIII Rule 10 when any party fails to file written statement as required under rule 1 or rule 9 within the stipulated time, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. 37. Careful perusal of aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that counter claim, if any, preferred by the defendant in the suit is in nature of cross suit and even if suit is dismissed counter claim would remain alive for adjudication. Since counter claim is in nature of cross suit, defendant is required to pay the requisite court fee on the valuation of counter claim. It has been specifically provided in the aforesaid provisions that the plaintiff is obliged to file a written statement qua counter claim and in case of default court can pronounce the judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter claim put forth by the defendant as it has an independent status. As per Rule 6A (2), the Court is required to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit both on the original claim and also on the counter-claim. 38. As per Rule 6A (2), the Court is required to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit both on the original claim and also on the counter-claim. 38. In the present case, as clearly emerged from the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, learned trial Court effectively determined the rights of the parties on the basis of counter claim as well as written statement thereto filed by the respective parties and as such it attained the status of decree. It would be profitable here to reproduce definition of the term “decree' as contained in Section 2 (2) of CPC:- “2. (2) “decree”means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within [1] [ * * *] Section 144, but shall not include: (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order. (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.” 39. Close scrutiny of aforesaid definition of “decree” clearly suggests that there should be formal expression of adjudication by the Court while determining the rights of the parties with regard to controversy in the suit, which would also include the rejection of plaint. Similarly, determination should be conclusive determination resulting in a formal expression of the adjudication. It is settled principle that once the matter in controversy has received judicial determination, the suit results in a decree, either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of the defendant. 40. In this regard, it would be appropriate to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajni Rani and Another vs. Khairati Lal and Others, (2015)2 SCC 682 , wherein the Court has held as under:- “16. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions to highlight that there may be situations where an order can get the status of a decree. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions to highlight that there may be situations where an order can get the status of a decree. A Court may draw up a formal decree or may not, but if by virtue of the order of the Court, the rights have finally been adjudicated, irrefutably it would assume the status of a decree. As is evincible, in the case at hand, the counter-claim which is in the nature of a cross-suit has been dismissed. Nothing else survives for the defendants who had filed the counter-claim. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the learned trial Judge has the status of a decree and the challenge to the same has to be made before the appropriate forum where appeal could lay by paying the requisite fee. It could not have been unsettled by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Ergo, the order passed by the High Court is indefensible.” 41. After perusing aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court need not to elaborate further on the issue at hand because Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that if by virtue of order of the Court rights have finally been adjudicated, it would assume the status of decree. Hon'ble Apex Court has also stated that Court may or may not draw a formal decree but if rights are finally adjudicated, it would assume the status of a decree. Learned Apex Court has further held that in such like situation order passed by trial Judge has the status of decree and challenge to the same has to be made before the appropriate forum where appeal could lay by paying the requisite fee. 42. If the matter is viewed from another angle, admittedly appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that they became owners of the suit property as detailed hereinabove by abandonment and alternative by adverse possession. Aforesaid claim having been set up by the plaintiffs in the present suit was dismissed; meaning thereby plaintiffs were not declared as owners of the suit land. 42. If the matter is viewed from another angle, admittedly appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that they became owners of the suit property as detailed hereinabove by abandonment and alternative by adverse possession. Aforesaid claim having been set up by the plaintiffs in the present suit was dismissed; meaning thereby plaintiffs were not declared as owners of the suit land. Whereas, in the aforesaid suit having been filed by the plaintiffs, defendants filed written statement-cum-counter claim seeking declaration to the effect that they may be declared owners in possession of the suit property, which relief was extended by the trial Court by decreeing the counter claim of the defendants declaring them to be the owners in possession of the suit property. 43. Since, as has been observed above, no challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the counter claim of the defendants, whereby they have been declared to be owners in possession of the suit property, composite appeal laying therein challenge to the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh, District Solan, in Civil Suit No.230/1 of 1999 was not maintainable. Moreover, relief as claimed in the appeal having been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs could not be extended to them without setting aside the judgment and decree passed in the counter claim in favour of the defendants. Once defendants have been declared to be owners in possession of the suit property by the trial Court while decreeing their counter claim, it is not understood how relief as prayed for in Civil suit having been filed by the plaintiffs could be extended without setting aside the judgment and decree passed in the counter claim. 44. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs that in the absence of specific decree drawn by learned trial Court at the time of decreeing the counter claim filed by the defendants, plaintiffs could not file separate appeal. Additional substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 45. Additional substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 45. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that learned first appellate Court erred in entertaining the composite appeal having been preferred on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs laying challenge therein to the judgment passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs as well as decreeing the counter claim preferred on behalf of the defendants-respondents. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) as well as provisions contained in the law as discussed above, appellants-plaintiffs being aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit and decreeing the counter claim ought to have filed separate appeals by affixing separate court fee and composite appeal, as has been preferred in the present case, was not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid findings having been returned by this Court on the additional substantial question of law, other substantial questions of law have become redundant and as such, are not required to be answered at this stage. 46. As far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs are concerned, this Court is of the view that the same are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra). 47. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, as well as latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajni Rani’s case (supra), the present appeal is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.