JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. —The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants, claiming therein a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, as also, a decree for mandatory injunction. The suit of the plaintiff stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the defendant/appellant herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal. In sequel thereto, the defendant/appellant herein is driven to institute the instant appeal here-before. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 6.6 bighas, comprised in Khasra No.1364/494, Khata Khatoni No.89 min/114 min, situated in village Gehrwin, Pargana Geharwin, Tehsil Jhanduta, District Bilaspur, H.P. over which the defendants have got no right, title or interest. However, on 20.2.1997, they forcibly entered the suit land and started digging it. When she objected, they threatened to forcibly occupy the suit land by raising construction thereon. It was further averred that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants managed to forcibly occupy land measuring 9 biswansies by constructing boundary wall and shed covered with tin on the part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.1364/494/2/1 as shown in the Tatima attached with the report of Local Commissioner/Tehsildar of 6.11.2001. Consequently, she prayed that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing interference in the suit land, measuring 6.6. bighas, in any manner including to change its nature and cut tress therefrom and a decree for vacant possession of land measuring 9 biswansies comprised in Khasra N.1364/494/2/1 occupied, forcibly by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, by demolishing the boundary wall and shed covered with tin, be passed in her favour and against the defendants. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, valuation and estoppel. ON merits, it was asserted that the plaintiff had sold land measuring 4 biswas out of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.1364/494/1 vide registered sale deed dated 11.1.1991 in favour of replying defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/- and also delivered the possession of aforesaid 4 biswas of land to him on same day. The defendants have got no concern with the remaining suit land. 11,000/- and also delivered the possession of aforesaid 4 biswas of land to him on same day. The defendants have got no concern with the remaining suit land. As far as the land is concerned, they have got every right, title or interest in the same which was purchased by replying defendant No.2 from the plaintiff for valuable consideration, as they are in possession of the same. It is further submitted that there is no question to cause interference, in any manner, over the rest of the suit land. It is submitted that when the land was purchased, a spot tatima was also prepared and in consequence thereof, its possession had been delivered to replying defendant No.2, who constructed a shop thereon besides installing welding set etc. The aforesaid had been done with the consent of the plaintiff and also to her notice and knowledge. At that the time, the plaintiff not doubted that replying defendant No.2 was going to raise construction on land comprising khasra No.1364/494/2/1, nor at that time, she had claimed the aforesaid land, belonging to her. Rather she had allowed the plaintiff to raise construction thereon. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had already constructed her house on the side of the land purchased by replying defendant No.2, who also raised constructing touching the wall of the house of the plaintiff. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly got to show that the plaintiff is guilty of acquiescence. It was further averred that since the plaintiff had also encroached upon the land measuring 9 biswansies comprising khasra No.1364/494/1/2, for this reason, he filed a separate suit against her in order to seek the possession of the above said encroached land. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, she denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the suit land, as alleged?OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. 6. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the suit land, as alleged?OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. 6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. 7. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendants/appellants before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereby, it modified the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 24.09.2008, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant(s)/appellant(s) against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in view of the fact that the appellant had purchased the land from the plaintiff more than 15 years back and had raised construction thereon without objection or protest, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction and possession could have been decreed? 2. Whether the trial Court has acted with illegality in exercise of jurisdiction in not affording the appellant an opportunity to file objections against the report of the local commissioner which report obviously was vitiated as demarcation had not been carried out in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders and instructions of the Financial Commissioner and the Local Commissioner having held that both the parties made encroachments on each of the land? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff was not within limitation and the defendant had acquired title by way of adverse possession in the facts and circumstances of the case and the suit ought to have been dismissed? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 3: 8. Uncontrovertedly, from the total tract of suit land, measuring 6-6 bighas borne on khasra No. 1364/494, 4 biswas of land, stood purchased, from the plaintiff by the contesting defendant/appellant herein. Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 3: 8. Uncontrovertedly, from the total tract of suit land, measuring 6-6 bighas borne on khasra No. 1364/494, 4 biswas of land, stood purchased, from the plaintiff by the contesting defendant/appellant herein. Since, the contesting defendants, purportedly, by their overt acts, hence, concerted to, other than upon 4 biswas of land, make encroachment upon land comprised in suit khasra No. 1364/494, measuring 6-6 bighas, thereupon, the plaintiff was led, to, institute a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and for vacant of possession of land measuring 9 biswansies, comprised in khasra No.1364/494/2/1, area whereof stood purportedly encroached upon by the contesting defendant. Since, during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court, the contesting defendant, purportedly, beyond the area of four biswas sold to him under a registered deed of conveyance, hence, raised construction, thereupon, a Local Commissioner was appointed, for, ascertaining the extent of encroachment(s), by way, of construction, made, upon khasra No.1364/494, by the contesting defendant(s). The Local Commissioner proceeded to hold demarcation of the adjoining estates of the parties at contest, where-after he tendered his report borne in Ex.PW4/B. In his report, he elaborates the factum of encroachment to the extent of 9 biswansies occurring upon khasra No.1364/494/2/1. Both the learned Courts below accepted the report of the Local Commissioner, hence, proceeded to render decrees for permanent prohibitory injunction also for mandatory injunction, comprised, in the defendants being directed to demolish the boundary wall and shed covered with tin, erections whereof occurred upon suit khasra No.1364/494/2/1. Construction, if any, raised by the defendants concerned upon land measuring 4 biswas, purchased by him from the plaintiff, under a registered deed of conveyance, in respect whereof a tatima was carved also (a) with existence thereon lasting since 15 years, especially when at the stage of its commencement no demur or protest emanated from the plaintiff, would obviously spur an inference of statutory estoppel operating against the plaintiff. (b) Nonetheless, interdictory effect(s) of the principle of estoppel operating against the plaintiff, (c) spurrings whereof emanating from lack of any demur or protest made by the plaintiff, at the time of commencement of construction, by the contesting defendant, would subside or would also wane (d) upon firm evidence pronounced, by, validly conducted demarcation(s) articulating (e) that the contesting defendant(s) had beyond the tract of four biswas alienated to him/them, by the plaintiff, under a registered deed of conveyance, obviously holding construction upon, tracts of land exclusively owned by the plaintiff. (f) Consequently, the factums aforesaid would surface only upon a valid demarcation being conducted by a competent revenue officer. 9. Further sequel(s) of the aforesaid inferences, are, (i) of the mere fact of the plaintiff, not, making any loud protests or remonstrances, at the time, of the defendants raising construction upon or purportedly beyond an area of four biswas, alienated to him under a registered deed of conveyance, executed inter se him/them and the plaintiff, ipso facto, not barring, the plaintiff to institute a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction or for mandatory injunction, if, (ii) a validly carried demarcation vividly pronounces, of, encroachment(s) being made by the contesting defendant(s), upon suit land(s) in respect whereof he/they had no right, title or interest, (iii) thereupon, with the plaintiff acquiring knowledge in respect of encroachments, made, by the defendant, upon, land exclusively owned by the plaintiff, only upon, the Revenue Officer holding a valid demarcation of the suit khasra number(s), (iv) thereupon, the bar of limitation commencing from the time of raising of purported illegal construction(s) by the defendants, till, the institution of the suit, would not obviously non suit the plaintiff, imperatively when knowledge in respect of the relevant fact, emanated, only upon a valid demarcation report, being prepared, by the competent Revenue Officer, whereat reiteredly alone knowledge in respects thereof, stood hence acquired, by the plaintiff. (iv) Sequels thereof are, of, lack of objection(s) or protest(s), by, the plaintiff qua the commencement of construction by the defendants, upon suit kahsra numbers, not, holding any interdictory effect against the institution of the plaintiff''s suit, for, permanent prohibitory injunction also for mandatory injunction, besides the institution of a suit by the plaintiff, after 15 years since the completion of purported illegal construction(s) upon suit khasra number, not, rendering the plaintiff''s suit, to entail its dismissal. 10. 10. Be that as it may, the concurrently recorded decrees of permanent prohibitory injunction besides mandatory injunction, would, hold an aura of validation, only when imputation(s) of sanctity(ies) by both the learned Courts vis-a-vis the report of the Local Commissioner, borne in Ex.PW4/A, withstand(s) the scrutiny of the relevant rules appertaining to the demarcation of land, rules whereof are borne in the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual. The apposite provisions of the H.P. Land Records Manual, occurring, at Chapter 10 thereof, Rule 10.3, at page 204, read as under: "10.3 An interested person shall submit an application for demarcation in duplicate. The following documents shall be filed with the original application. 1. A copy of latest jamabandi. 2. A copy of previous settlement map. 3. A copy of map prepared during consolidation, if consolidation operations have been conducted in the estate. 4. A copy of tatima Shajra if the demarcation of sub-divided khasra number is involved. 5. Process fee as prescribed under the rules." The aforesaid apposite provisions enjoin upon the applicant, seeking demarcation, to, with the apposite application, append, amongst other documents, a, copy of the previous settlement map. Nowat, for, determining whether the demarcating officer at the time of his holding demarcation of the suit khasra number, his thereat also holding possession of a copy of the previous settlement map, an allusion is imperative to his deposition recorded on oath. An allusion thereto, underscores, of in his cross-examination, his admitting, a suggestion put to him, of his, at the relevant time, not possessing, a copy of the previous settlement map, rather his at the relevant time possessing, a copy of "Istmal musabi". Since, the herein-above extracted rule voice the (a) mandatoriness of the demarcating officer, at the relevant time, possessing, a copy of the previous settlement map, thereupon, the mandatoriness of the phraseology occurring in the apt portion of the apposite Rules, enjoin him to beget strict compliance therewith. (b) Any departure therefrom would render open an inference (c) of the demarcation carried by the Revenue Officer concerned being in infraction of mandatory statutory provision(s), hence, rendering, it, nonest besides vitiated. Further corollary whereof is of any imputation of reliance vis-a-vis the report of the Local Commissioner, by both the learned Courts below, being bereft of vigour. (b) Any departure therefrom would render open an inference (c) of the demarcation carried by the Revenue Officer concerned being in infraction of mandatory statutory provision(s), hence, rendering, it, nonest besides vitiated. Further corollary whereof is of any imputation of reliance vis-a-vis the report of the Local Commissioner, by both the learned Courts below, being bereft of vigour. The upshot of the above discussion is, of, the concurrently recorded decrees of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction, by both the learned Courts below, hence, suffering from a gross perversity, absurdity, of, gross mis-appreciation of the apt documentary evidence, whereupon, this Court is constrained to reverse the concurrent pronouncement recorded by both the learned Courts below. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent(s). 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 being not 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 excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 12. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.