JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 3.9.2002 passed by learned District Judge Sirmour District at Nahan HP announced in civil appeal No. 24-CA/13 of 2002 title Neen Ali and others Vs. Smt. Kala. Learned District Judge affirmed judgment and decree of learned trial Court passed in civil suit No. 38/1 of 2000/1996 title Neen Ali and others Vs. Smt. Kala. Brief facts of the case: 2. Sh. Jaan Mohamad deceased plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land by way of oral sale deed and by way of right of adverse possession and entries in the revenue record relating to Smt. Choli and entries of succession in favour of defendant are illegal, fraudulent, wrong and not binding upon deceased plaintiff and his legal heirs. Consequential relief of permanent injunction also sought restraining defendant from interfering in suit land comprised in khata-khatauni No. 289/539 khasra No. 276 situated at mauza Manpura Deora Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmour HP. It is further pleaded that Nanak son of Sh Fatta was owner of suit land. It is further pleaded that Nanak left village in the year 1972 and thereafter deceased plaintiff forcibly occupied suit land in the year 1973 and since 1973 deceased plaintiff is cultivating suit land and after death of deceased his legal heirs are in possession of suit land as owner in possession openly to the notice of true owner Nanak and after death of Nanak to the notice of his widow Smt. Choli and perfected title by way of right of adverse possession in the year 1986-87. It is further pleaded that Smt. Choli died and defendant inherited her property as legal heir. It is further pleaded that in the month of August 1996 husband of defendant threatened deceased plaintiff to dispossess the deceased plaintiff from suit land. It is further pleaded that Sh. Mansa Ram who was general attorney of Nanak received a sum of Rs. 3800/- (Three thousand eight hundred) as sale consideration amount but did not execute sale deed. It is further pleaded that in alternative right of adverse possession has accrued to deceased plaintiff through his legal heirs. During the pendency of civil suit plaintiff Jaan Mohamad died and his legal heirs brought on record. Prayer for decree of suit sought as mentioned in relief clause of plaint. It is further pleaded that in alternative right of adverse possession has accrued to deceased plaintiff through his legal heirs. During the pendency of civil suit plaintiff Jaan Mohamad died and his legal heirs brought on record. Prayer for decree of suit sought as mentioned in relief clause of plaint. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that deceased plaintiff and legal heirs of deceased plaintiff have no right, title or interest in suit property and they have no locus standi to file suit. It is further pleaded that suit in the present form is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that Smt. Choli widow of Nanak and mother of defendant gave suit land to late Sh. Jaan Mohamad for cultivation purpose as licensee in the month of June 1975 with condition that whenever late Smt. Choli or her daughter would need or demand suit land then licensee late Sh Jaan Mohamad or his successor would hand over vacant possession of suit land. It is further pleaded that possession of late Sh Jaan Mohamad was as licensee over suit land. It is further pleaded that on 15th June 1996 defendant requested late Sh Jaan Mohamad to deliver the possession of suit land but in vain. It is further pleaded that intention of late Sh Jaan Mohamad and thereafter his legal heirs became dishonest and late Sh Jaan Mohamad filed present suit. It is further pleaded that late Sh Jaan Mohamad has suppressed true facts from Court. It is further pleaded that late Jaan Mohamad has no right, title or interest in the suit land. It is further pleaded that on dated 15.11.1996 Jaan Mohamad refused to deliver the possession of suit land. It is further pleaded that possession of deceased plaintiff from 15.11.1996 is in the capacity of tress passer and plaintiff and his legal heirs are under legal obligation to deliver possession of suit land to defendant. It is further pleaded that defendant is also entitled for special cost under Section 35A CPC. It is further pleaded that Jaan Mohamad did not dispute title of defendant. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. Deceased plaintiff through his legal heirs filed replication and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in plaint. 4. Defendant also filed counter claim and sought relief of possession of suit land on the basis of title. It is further pleaded that Jaan Mohamad did not dispute title of defendant. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. Deceased plaintiff through his legal heirs filed replication and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in plaint. 4. Defendant also filed counter claim and sought relief of possession of suit land on the basis of title. Deceased plaintiff through his legal heirs filed written statement to counter claim. 5. As per pleadings of parties following issues framed by learned trial Court on 28.4.1999. 1. Whether plaintiff has become owner of suit land by way of adverse possession as alleged? …OPP. 2. Whether entry in revenue record showing defendant as ‘Kabiz’ is wrong and illegal as alleged?. …OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for? …OPP. 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file present suit? …OPD 5. Whether suit is not maintainable in present form? …OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff was a licensee over suit land as alleged, if so its effect?. …OPD. 6-A Whether plaintiff is entitled for protection of section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act as alleged?. …OPP. 7. Relief. 6. Findings of learned trial court on issues No. 1 to 3 are in negative and findings of learned trial Court on issues No. 4, 5 and 6 are in affirmative. Learned trial Court decided issue No.6-A in negative. Learned trial court dismissed suit of plaintiff and decreed counter claim filed by defendant. 7. Feeling aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court deceased plaintiff through his legal heirs filed civil appeal No. 24-CA/13 of 2002 which was dismissed by learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan. Thereafter deceased plaintiff through his legal heirs filed present RSA No. 501 of 2002 Hon’ble High Court of HP framed following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted the material with regard to plea of adverse possession of deceased plaintiff and view taken by him on this plea is perverse, more particularly when deceased plaintiff is recorded ‘Kabij’ on suit land since 1976 onward in revenue record?. 2. 1. Whether learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted the material with regard to plea of adverse possession of deceased plaintiff and view taken by him on this plea is perverse, more particularly when deceased plaintiff is recorded ‘Kabij’ on suit land since 1976 onward in revenue record?. 2. Whether learned District Judge has erred in taking view that Nanak had died in the year 1972 and therefore there is no question of execution of agreement Ext PW6/A dated 23.4.1975 by his general attorney Mansa Ram in favour of Jaan Mohamad for sale of suit land and giving benefit of section 53A of Transfer of Property Act by ignoring fact that defendant has herself pleaded in written statement that Nanak had died in Baisakh 1975?. 3. Whether learned District Judge has committed an error of law in rejecting application of plaintiffs under order 41 rule 27 CPC for additional evidence for proving mutation No. 620 dated 2.3.1976 regarding succession of Nanak in favour of Smt. Choli and mutation No. 1210 dated 23.1.1995 wherein defendant had represented herself to be adopted daughter of Nanak but in present case defendant is claiming herself to be natural daughter of Nanak and Smt. Choli?. 4. Whether learned District Judge in facts and circumstances of case has not appreciated that even after counter claim of defendant in suit the trial court did not frame any issue with respect to entitlement of defendant for possession of suit land but in fact has decreed claim of defendant for possession of suit land which has prejudiced plaintiffs?. 5. Whether learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied the pleadings and evidence on record and view taken by him in impugned judgment and decree is not possible on basis of material on record?. 8. Oral evidence adduced by parties. 8.1 PW1 Neen Ali has stated that suit land is 15 bighas which is situated at Manpura Devora and the owner of suit land was Nanak. He has stated that Nanak went to UP and thereafter deceased plaintiff occupied suit land. He has stated that his father deceased plaintiff cultivated suit land during his life time and after the death of his father he is cultivating suit land. He has stated that he has become owner of suit land by way of right of adverse possession. He has stated that Choli was the wife of Nanak. He has stated that his father deceased plaintiff cultivated suit land during his life time and after the death of his father he is cultivating suit land. He has stated that he has become owner of suit land by way of right of adverse possession. He has stated that Choli was the wife of Nanak. He has stated that there was no issue from the loin of Nanak and Choli. He has stated that Choli also went to U.P along with Nanak. He has stated that defendant is not the legal heir of Nanak and Choli. He has stated that defendant got recorded her name in the revenue record as legal heir of Nanak and Choli in illegal manner. He has stated that Mansa Ram was attorney of Nanak. He has stated that in the year 1975 attorney of Nanak came to his father and took Rs. 3800/- (Three thousand eight hundred). He has stated that thereafter attorney of Nanak returned back to UP and did not come back. He has stated that defendant has no legal title in suit property. He has tendered in evidence jamabandi for the year 1978-79 Ext PW1/A, jamabandi for the year 1983-84 Ext PW1/B and jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Ext PW1/C. He has denied suggestion that Choli died in the house of defendant on 29.9.1992. He has denied suggestion that defendant is the daughter of Choli. He has denied suggestion that Nanak had died in the year 1975. He has denied suggestion that deceased plaintiff was licensee in the suit land. He has stated that Mansa Ram has executed agreement with Jaan Mohamad to execute sale deed qua suit property. He has denied suggestion that Mansa Ram was not general attorney of Nanak. He has denied suggestion that no agreement on behalf of Nanak was executed relating to sale of suit land. 8.2 PW2 Shudu Ram has stated that he was familiar with Jaan Mohamad and Nanak. He has stated that Choli was the wife of Nanak. He has stated that Choli and Nanak were issueless. He has stated that land of Nanak was cultivated by Jugal Kishore and Jaan Mohamad. He has stated that after some time Jugal Kishore left land and thereafter entire land was cultivated by Jaan Mohamad. He has stated that Nanak and Choli both went to UP and possession of land remained with Jaan Mohamad. He has stated that land of Nanak was cultivated by Jugal Kishore and Jaan Mohamad. He has stated that after some time Jugal Kishore left land and thereafter entire land was cultivated by Jaan Mohamad. He has stated that Nanak and Choli both went to UP and possession of land remained with Jaan Mohamad. He has stated that after death of Jaan Mohamad possession of suit land remained with legal heirs of Jaan Mohamad. He has stated that Mansa Ram was general attorney of Nanak. He has stated that Mansa Ram took Rs. 3800/- (Three thousand eight hundred) from Jaan Mohamad. He has stated that defendant is daughter of Nathu and defendant has no title or interest in suit property. He has stated that defendant is not daughter of Nanak and Choli. He has denied suggestion that Mansa Ram was not general attorney of Nanak. He has denied suggestion that no consideration amount was paid to Mansa Ram. He has denied suggestion that Choli and Nanak did not go to U.P. He has denied suggestion that defendant is daughter of Choli. He has denied suggestion that no consideration amount was paid to Mansa Ram amounting to Rs. 3800/- (Three thousand eight hundred). 8.3 PW3 Randhir Singh Patwari has proved rojnamcha No. 478 dated 12.4.1976 Ext PA. He has stated that same is correct as per original record. 8.4 PW4 Suresh Kumar has stated that he is familiar with the signature of his father. He has stated that his father has signed in agreement mark ‘A’ and he identified the signature of his father. He has stated that his father did not sign the document in his presence. He has denied suggestion that he is not familiar with the signature of his father. 8.5 PW5 Ran Singh Chauhan registration clerk Paonta Sahib has stated that he has brought summoned record. He has stated that on 5.9.1974 Nanak son of Fata has given power of attorney to Mansa Ram Ext PW5/A and the same is correct as per original record. He has admitted that he was not posted as registration Clerk in the year 1974. He has denied suggestion that document Ext PW5/A is the forged document. 8.6 PW6 Umesh Gupta has stated that his father was petition writer who died in the year 1993. He has stated that he is familiar with signature of his father. He has admitted that he was not posted as registration Clerk in the year 1974. He has denied suggestion that document Ext PW5/A is the forged document. 8.6 PW6 Umesh Gupta has stated that his father was petition writer who died in the year 1993. He has stated that he is familiar with signature of his father. He has stated that document Ext PW6/A was signed by his father. He has denied suggestion that document Ext PW6/A did not bear signature of his father. He has denied suggestion that he did not work along with his father. 8.7 PW7 Jug Mohan Singh has stated that his father was agriculturist and he is familiar with signature of his father. He has stated that his father has died. He has stated that document Ext PW7/A bears signature of his father. He has denied suggestion that document Ext PW7/A did not bears signature of his father. 8.8 DW1 Smt. Kalawati has stated that the name of her father was Nanak and name of her mother was Choli. She has stated that her father was owner of suit property. She has stated that she is only legal heir of deceased Nanak and Choli. She has stated that after her marriage she settled in-laws house. She has stated that suit land was given to Jaan Mohamad as licensee. She has stated that deceased plaintiff and his legal heirs are in possession of suit land as licensee. She has stated that after the death of her mother she inherited the suit property. She has stated that Jaan Mohamad and his legal heirs have no title in the suit property. She has stated that she requested deceased Jaan Mohamad and his legal heirs to vacate suit land. She has stated that suit land was not alienated to Jaan Mohamad. She has stated that her father did not receive any sale consideration amount. She has denied suggestion that general attorney was given to Mansa Ram. She has denied suggestion that deceased plaintiff and his legal heirs are in settled possession of suit land by way of right of adverse possession. She has denied suggestion that in order to acquire suit land she has falsely pretended herself to be daughter of Nanak and Choli. 8.9 DW2 Raghubir has stated that Choli was his relative. He has stated that Choli was married with Nanak. She has denied suggestion that in order to acquire suit land she has falsely pretended herself to be daughter of Nanak and Choli. 8.9 DW2 Raghubir has stated that Choli was his relative. He has stated that Choli was married with Nanak. He has stated that he used to visit the house of Nanak. He has stated that defendant was born from the loin of Nanak and Choli. He has stated that defendant was married with Bal Ram. He has stated that he does not know that Mansa Ram alienated suit land in favour of deceased Jaan Mohamad. 8.10 DW3 Mela Ram has stated that he is familiar with Nanak and Choli who are residents of his village. He has stated that defendant is the daughter of Nanak. He has stated that Choli had died in the residential house of defendant. He has stated that Nanak was his uncle. He has denied suggestion that Nanak died in U.P. 9. Following documentaries evidence adduced by parties. (1) Ext PW1/A is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79. (2) Ext PW1/B is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1983-84. (3) Ext PW1/C is the copy of missal haquiat for the year 1993-94 (4) Ext PA is the copy of rapat No. 478 dated 12.4.1976. (5) Ext PW5/A is the copy of general power of attorney dated 5.9.1974 given by Nanak in favour of Mansa Ram. (6) Ext PW6/A is the copy of agreement of sale dated 23.4.1975 executed between Nanak through general attorney Mansa Ram in favour of Jaan Mohamad. (7) Ext PW6/A is the letter written by Brij Bhushan to Sub Registrar Paonta Sahib. (8) Ext DA is the copy of missal haquiat for the year 1978-79. (9) Ext DB is the copy of missal haquiat for the year 1993-94. (10) Ext DC is the copy of missal haquiat for the year 1973-74. (11) Ext DE is the copy of khasra Girdawari w.e.f. 21.11.1974 to 1979. (12) Ext DE is the copy of rapat. (13) Ext DF is the copy of jamabandi (14) Ext DG is the copy of death certificate. Findings upon point No.1 of substantial question of law. 10. (11) Ext DE is the copy of khasra Girdawari w.e.f. 21.11.1974 to 1979. (12) Ext DE is the copy of rapat. (13) Ext DF is the copy of jamabandi (14) Ext DG is the copy of death certificate. Findings upon point No.1 of substantial question of law. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants/plaintiffs that right of adverse possession has accrued to appellants/plaintiffs over suit land because predecessor-in-interest of appellants remained in settled possession of suit land since 1978 in relevant record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that suit for declaration of adverse possession cannot be filed by plaintiffs. It is well settled law that plea of adverse possession can be pleaded as defence/shield only. See 2014 (1) SCC 669 title Gurdwara Sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat village Sirthala and another. It is well settled law that animus possession should be proved and mere possession for long period does not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession. See 2011 (10) SCC 404 title State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar and others, see 2010 (2) SCC 461 title Mandal Revenue officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah and another, see 2009 (13) SCC 229 title L.N. Aswathama and another Vs. P. Prakash, see 2007 (6) SCC 59 title P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others Vs. Revamma and others, see 2009 (16) SCC 517 title Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and others. It was held in case reported in 1996 (1) SLJ 215 HP title Rajinder Kumar Vs. Bhag Singh that entries in revenue record regarding possession without any status will not give any legal right. In the present case plaintiffs have admitted permissive possession of suit land by way of agreement of sale Ext PW6/A dated 23.4.1975 in consideration amount of Rs.3800/- (Three thousand eight hundred). It is well settled law that permissive possession cannot be adverse possession. Hence it is held that plaintiffs are not entitled for right of adverse possession in the present case. Point No.1 of substantial question of law is decided against appellants/plaintiffs. Findings upon point No.2 of substantial question of law. 11. It is well settled law that permissive possession cannot be adverse possession. Hence it is held that plaintiffs are not entitled for right of adverse possession in the present case. Point No.1 of substantial question of law is decided against appellants/plaintiffs. Findings upon point No.2 of substantial question of law. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that right of part performance as mentioned under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882 also accrued in favour of appellants/plaintiffs in present case over suit property in view of agreement Ext.PW6/A dated 23.4.1975 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that plea of part performance as mentioned under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882 is available only by way of defence. It is held that above stated plea is available to defendant only and plea of part performance is not available to plaintiffs. See 1996 (1) SCC 639 title Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar and another. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants/plaintiffs that defendant is not daughter of Nanak but daughter of Nathoo and Rassali is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Appellants/plaintiffs did not examine Nathoo and Rasali in Court in order to prove fact that defendant is daughter of Nathoo and Rasali. On the contrary DW1 Smt. Kalawat, DW2 Raghubir and DW3 Mela Ram have stated in positive manner that Kalawati was born from loins of Nanak and Choli. Testimonies of DW1, DW2 and DW3 are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. Nanak was uncle of DW3 Mela Ram. DW3 Mela Ram is close relative of Nanak. It is well settled law that close relative is best witness relating to dispute of relationship status. Point No.2 of substantial question of law is decided against appellants/plaintiffs. Findings upon point No.3 of substantial question of law. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that learned District Judge has committed error of law in rejecting application of plaintiffs filed under order 41 rule 27 CPC for adducing additional evidence for proving mutation No. 620 dated 2.3.2016 regarding succession of Nanak in favour of Choli and mutation No. 1210 dated 23.1.1995 wherein defendant represented herself to be daughter of Nanak is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that mutation proceedings are only for fiscal purpose and mutation proceedings did not confer any title in favour of any party. See AIR 1994 SC 1496 title Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, See AIR 1994 SC 227 title Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand and others. Even learned first appellate court has specifically held that plaintiffs did not fulfill requirement of Order XLI rule 27 CPC i.e. (1) Learned trial court refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted. (2) Party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that non-withstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within knowledge or could not after exercise of due diligence be provided at the time when decree appealed was passed. (3) That documents are required to enable court to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants/plaintiffs that general attorney of Nanak has executed agreement for sale in favour of Jaan Mohamad predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs Ext PW6/A on 23.4.1975 in consideration amount of Rs.3800/- (Thirty thousand eight hundred) and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Agreement for sale was executed on 23.4.1975 and there is recital in agreement Ext PW6/A that sale deed would be executed within six months w.e.f. 23.4.1975. Court is of the opinion that time is essence of contract. Plaintiffs did not file any suit within three years after expiry of six months from the date of execution of agreement of sale dated 23.4.1975. Present suit was filed by plaintiffs in the year 1996. As per Limitation Act 1963 suit for specific performance of contract can be filed within three years from the date of cause of action. Court is of the opinion that in present case date of cause of action accrued to plaintiffs after expiry of six months from the date of execution of agreement. Six months from the date of execution of agreement expired on 23.10.1975. Hence it is held that relief of specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement Ext PW6/A cannot be granted in favour of appellants/plaintiffs because relief is barred as per Limitation Act 1963. Six months from the date of execution of agreement expired on 23.10.1975. Hence it is held that relief of specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement Ext PW6/A cannot be granted in favour of appellants/plaintiffs because relief is barred as per Limitation Act 1963. As per Section 3 of Limitation Act 1963 every suit instituted should be dismissed if the same is filed after prescribed period mentioned in Limitation Act 1963. Point No.3 of substantial question of law is decided against appellants/plaintiffs. Findings upon point No.4 of substantial question of law. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants/plaintiffs that learned trial Court did not frame issue of counter claim and without framing issue of counter claim learned trial court has granted relief by way of counter claim to defendant and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case both parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of adverse party. It is held that appellants did not file any application before learned trial court for framing of any additional issues. It is held that plea of counter claim was within the knowledge of appellants/plaintiffs because counter claim was filed by defendant before framing of issues. It is held that no miscarriage of justice has been caused to appellants/plaintiffs by way of non-framing of issue of counter claim by learned trial court. See AIR 1963 SC 884 title Nedunuri Kameswaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao. It is well settled law that when right of adverse possession is claimed by any party and if right of adverse possession is defeated then true owner is legally entitled for relief of possession on the basis of title. See 1997 (1) SLJ HP 84 title Tilak Raj Vs. Bhagat Ram and another. See 2009 (1) SLJ HP 189 title Amar Singh Vs. Jai Singh. It is well settled law that non framing of issue is not material unless prejudice is caused to party. In the present case no prejudice is caused to appellants/plaintiffs by way of non framing of issue of counter claim of possession because appellants/plaintiffs themselves pleaded right of adverse possession against true owner. Jai Singh. It is well settled law that non framing of issue is not material unless prejudice is caused to party. In the present case no prejudice is caused to appellants/plaintiffs by way of non framing of issue of counter claim of possession because appellants/plaintiffs themselves pleaded right of adverse possession against true owner. Even plea of non framing of issue of counter claim not raised by appellants before first appellate Court and same is raised at belated stage in RSA only. It is not expedient in ends of justice to entertain plea at belated stage of case. Hence point No.4 of substantial question of law is decided against appellants/plaintiffs. Findings upon point No.5 of substantial question of law. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that learned District Judge has misconstrued and misinterpreted the pleadings and evidence on record and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that learned District Judge has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and no miscarriage of justice is caused to appellants in present case. It is held that there is no infirmity and illegality in the judgment of learned Trial court and learned first Appellate Court. It is held that judgment and decree of learned Trial court and learned first Appellate Court are based upon oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that judgment and decree passed by learned Trial court and learned first Appellate Court are in consonance with law. Hence point No.5 of substantial question of law is decided against appellants/plaintiffs. Relief. 17. In view of above findings appeal filed by appellants is dismissed. No order as to costs. Learned Registrar Judicial will prepare decree sheet in accordance with law. File of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with a certify copy of judgment and decree sheet. Appeal is disposed of. Pending applications if any also stands disposed of.