JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the appellant/plaintiff against the concurrently recorded verdicts of the learned Courts below, whereby, they dismissed the suit of the plaintiff wherein he claimed relief of declaration besides relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that original plaintiff Kripu Ram has filed the suit for declaration and injunction, in the alternative for possession against the defendants. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land comprised in khata khatauni No.327/423, khasra No.952, measuring 4-2-0 bighas, situated in phati Bari, Kothi Baragarh, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. vide jamabandi for the year 1992-93. The claim of the plaintiff is that he obtained the suit land by way of grant of nautor from the State of H.P., in the year 1976. That as per Rules, the suit land could not be transferred for a period of twenty years from the date of its grant. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in the month of Jesth, 1994, defendant No.1 came to him and expressed his willingness to purchase grass of his orchard. The plaintiff agreed to sell the grass of his orchard for a sum of Rs.5,000/- for two years i.e. 1994 and 1995. On 7.6.1994, an agreement with regard to sale of the grass was executed. A sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid to him and the remaining amount of Rs.4,000/- was to be paid later on. It has been further alleged that defendant No.1 told the plaintiff that as he (plaintiff) intended to construct a house over the suit land, therefore, the plaintiff should supply him the material and the labour expenses will adjusted in the payment of balance amount of Rs.4,000/- due from him on account of price of grass. The plaintiff agreed to it and supplied construction material to raise a house on the suit land. It has been pleaded that in the second week of December, 1996, defendant No.1 started interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. On inquiry, defendant No.1 told that two bighas of land had been sold by the plaintiff to him. It has been pleaded that in the second week of December, 1996, defendant No.1 started interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. On inquiry, defendant No.1 told that two bighas of land had been sold by the plaintiff to him. It is further averred that such sale deed, if any, had been obtained by exercising fraud upon the plaintiff, hence, the suit for declaration and injunction against defendant No.1 and in the alternative for possession of the suit land. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1 in his written statement has taken preliminary objections qua particulars of fraud and mis-representation have not been pleaded, locus standi and estoppel. On merits, replying defendant has denied that the suit land could not be sold for twenty years. He has explained that the plaintiff produced the patta of the land containing a condition that the suit land could not be sold within fifteen years. He has denied with regard to playing of fraud and mis-representation. He has also submitted that he never purchased grass from the plaintiff for Rs.5,000/-. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has sold the suit land out of his free will and received consideration amount of Rs.21,500/-. The plants and the house over the suit land has been raised by the replying defendant. He has submitted that he raised a loan of Rs.15,000/- from defendant No2, being the owner of the suit land, therefore, he had every legal right to mortgage the suit land with defendant No.2. 4. Defendant No.2 in his written statement has denied the allegations for want of knowledge. The fact of raising of loan and creation of mortgage by defendant No.1 was admitted. It has been submitted that the replying defendant advanced loan of Rs.15,000/- in favour of defendant No.1 against security. 5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the sale deed dated 7.6.1994 is the result of fraud and mis-representation as alleged, if so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? OPP. 3. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the sale deed dated 7.6.1994 is the result of fraud and mis-representation as alleged, if so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? OPP. 3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. In case plaintiff is found out of possession of the suit land, whether he is entitled for the relief of possession? OPP 5. Whether the suit land being a nautor land was not transferable by the plaintiff as alleged? OPP 6. If issue No.5 is proved in affirmative, whether the mortgage executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 is void as alleged? OPP. 7. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 1&2 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the instant suit? OPD. 9. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable, if so, its effect? OPD-1 10. Whether the instant suit against defendant No.2 is not maintainable as alleged? OPD-2. 11. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs/appellants herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 12.08.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the findings, as arrived at by the Courts below, are against the provisions of the H.P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975? Substantial question of Law No.1. 9. The suit land was granted to the plaintiff, by way of nautor, by the competent authority. Whether the findings, as arrived at by the Courts below, are against the provisions of the H.P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975? Substantial question of Law No.1. 9. The suit land was granted to the plaintiff, by way of nautor, by the competent authority. The grant of the suit land, by way of nautor, to the plaintiff, was, in pursuance to the apposite provisions borne in Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. Uncontrovertedly, the apposite grant visa- vis the plaintiff, occurred in the year 1976. The execution of the apposite sale deed, comprised in Ex.DW2/A, occurred on 7.6.1994. Since, the apposite grant in respect of the suit land was made upon the deceased plaintiff in the year 1976, hence, the apposite provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 borne in clause (f) of Rule 12, warrant extraction hereinafter:- “12. Resumption.- The grant of nautor land shall be cancelled and the land granted resumed by the State Government without payment of any compensation in the following events:- (a)................................... (b).................................. (c)................................... (d)..................................... (e)...................................... (f) If, the grantee of his legal representative successor alienates the land granted in nautor, within 15 years from the date of the patta, or if he alienates, it, at any time for a purpose other than the one for which the land was granted to him. In the event of other kind of alienation the power of the State Government to cancel the grant and to resume the land shall govern the alience also; and” From the aforesaid extracted provisions enshrined in clause (f) of Rule 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968, it is to be gauged that whether the prohibition cast therein against the suit land being inalienable within 15 years commencing from the year 1976, stood, infringed in respect of the apposite alienation recorded in the year 1994. The relevant afore extracted apposite provisions enjoy force, significantly when their diktat and command holds prevalence, at the time contemporaneous to the grant of the suit land by way of nautor vis-a-vis the plaintiff. The relevant afore extracted apposite provisions enjoy force, significantly when their diktat and command holds prevalence, at the time contemporaneous to the grant of the suit land by way of nautor vis-a-vis the plaintiff. Since, the apposite alienation has apparently occurred beyond 15 years thereafter, hence, after completion of the prohibited period constituted in clause (f) of Rule 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968, provisions whereof holding sway besides clout vis-a-vis the apposite grant, thereupon, the alienation of the suit land under Ex.DW2/A, does not, attract the mandate of clause(f) of Rule 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 nor the sale deed borne in Ex.DW2/A begets any stain of invalidation. 10. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has, on anvil of the provisions borne in Rule 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975, wherein, in substitution of the earlier prohibited tenure of 15 years “against” the grantee therewithin being interdicted to make any alienation of the land granted to him, as nautor, by the competent authority, rather a period of 20 years stood inserted, also on anvil of the apt phraseology occurring therein of “the grantee shall not transfer the land granted under this scheme to any person within a period of 20 years from the date of taking over possession of land by him” has thereupon espoused that mandates thereof being attractable vis-a-vis the sale deed borne in Ex.DW2/A. However, for his submission to hold vigour, it was imperative for the plaintiff, to adduce cogent evidence in respect, of, from the year 1976 upto 11.9.1980, the plaintiff “not” taking possession of the suit land, whereas, his taking possession thereof after 11.9.1980. However, evidence in respect of the plaintiff taking possession of the suit land “not” upto 11.9.1980 rather his taking its possession thereafter, is abysmally amiss. Since, for attraction hereat of the mandate, of, the apposite clause borne Rule 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975, rendered the aforesaid trite factum being enjoined to be proven by cogent clinching evidence, whereas, evidence in respect thereof, being, abysmally amiss hereat. Since, for attraction hereat of the mandate, of, the apposite clause borne Rule 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975, rendered the aforesaid trite factum being enjoined to be proven by cogent clinching evidence, whereas, evidence in respect thereof, being, abysmally amiss hereat. In sequel, the computation of the prohibited period, is, to be made from the provisions occurring in clause(f) of Rule 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968, wherein, there is a display that the reckoning of the apposite prohibited period of 15 years, is to commence from the date of issuance of patta, thereupon with the alienation of the suit land occurring more 15 years elapsing since the making of the apposite grant vis-a-vis the plaintiff, hence, renders sale deed borne in Ex.DW2/A to be not gripped with any vice of any invalidations. 11. 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. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the defendants/respondents and against the plaintiffs/appellants. 12. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed and the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.