JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 18.1.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 46-G/XIII/2004, affirming judgment and decree dated 9.1.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 133 of 1999, whereby suit for injunction having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘plaintiff’) came to be decreed. 2. Facts sans unnecessary details, as emerges from the record are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellants-defendants (hereinafter, ‘defendants’) from raising construction over the land comprised in Khata No. 69 min Khatauni No. 80, Khasra No. 179 measuring 0-07-28 hectares as described in Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, situate in Mohal and Mauza Majhin, Tehsil Khundian, Tehsil Dehra, Dsitrict Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘suit land’) and in the alternative, decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to restore the suit land to its original position after demolition of structure. Plaintiff specifically alleged in the plaint that the suit land is owned and possessed by him and his brothers being co-sharers, whereas, defendants have no right, title or interest over the same, as such they being strangers, have no right, title or interest to raise construction over the suit land. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants started collecting building material i.e. sand, cement, bricks and iron with a view to raise construction forcibly over the suit land by raising pillars. Since despite repeated requests defendants failed to accede to the request of the plaintiff not to raise construction, plaintiff was compelled to file suit. 3. Defendants by way of written statement refuted aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel and suppression of material facts. On merits, defendants did not dispute ownership and possession of the suit land but claimed that they are owner of adjoining land. Defendants further claimed that neither they had collected building material on suit land nor they raised construction on the suit land as such, suit deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs by way of replication reaffirmed and reasserted his claim set up in the plaint but specifically denied the contents of the written statement. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned trial Court framed following issues for determination: 1. Plaintiffs by way of replication reaffirmed and reasserted his claim set up in the plaint but specifically denied the contents of the written statement. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned trial Court framed following issues for determination: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Relief. 4. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants by decree of perpetual injunction from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or raising construction over the suit land, in any manner whatsoever. Learned trial Court further directed the defendants by way of decree of mandatory injunction to demolish the structure raised by them over the part of disputed land i.e. Khasra No. 179/1 during the pendency of the suit and to restore the land to its original position. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, defendants filed an appeal under Section 94 CPC in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, however, the fact remains that the same was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In this background, the defendants have come before this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for setting aside judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 6. Vide order dated 7.4.2008, this Court admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Learned first appellate court below has erred by not appreciating that even the alleged encroachment to the extent of 0-00-02 Hectare (less than a biswa) is so negligible and is liable to be ignored and at the most a nominal compensation could have been granted to the plaintiff/respondent?” 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. At the very outset, it may be observed that this Court, after having perused the aforesaid substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission, is very much persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel representing the plaintiff that no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court, as such, present appeal deserves to be dismissed on this sole ground. 9. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate, representing the defendants, while referring to the aforesaid substantial question of law contended that learned first appellate Court below while upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, failed to take note of the report submitted by the local commissioner, wherein encroachment to the extent of 0-00-02 hectares came to be reported by the defendants and as such, same being negligible, could be ignored by the learned Court below and at best, defendants could be asked to compensate the plaintiff by paying some reasonable compensation. 10. Though, this Court after having analysed/perused aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior Advocate vis-à-vis text of the substantial question of law formulated herein above, sees no reason to deliberate further on the issue, especially when no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court, but solely with a view to test the correctness of the other submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the defendants, wherein he vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Court below are the result of misreading, mis-appreciation and misconstruction of the evidence, especially report of the local commissioner, Ext. PW-1/A, deems it proper to frame additional substantial question of law for determination by this Court. Since, Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate, while referring to the report of the local commissioner Ext. PW-1/A strenuously argued that both the learned Courts below erred in not appreciating the report submitted by local commissioner in its right perspective, this Court frames following additional substantial question of law: “Whether impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is the result of misreading, mis-appreciation and misconstruction of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, especially the report of the local commissioner, Ext. PW-1/A?” 11. PW-1/A?” 11. Before exploring answer to the aforesaid substantial question of law, it may be noticed that there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the plaintiff qua the suit land. Defendants in their written statement have categorically admitted the plaintiff to be owner of the suit land. Apart from the pleadings, it is quite evident from the perusal of the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, Ext. P1 that suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and other co-sharers. It also emerges from the record that during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court, plaintiff moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of local commissioner. Accordingly, learned trial Court with the consent of the parties, appointed Tehsildar Khundian as a local commissioner. Learned trial Court specifically directed the local commissioner to demarcate the suit land, and report as to whether defendants have encroached upon any of its part or not? Court below further directed the local commissioner to state the extent of encroachment, if any, by the defendants over any portion of the suit property and its nature. Perusal of Ext. PW-1/A suggests that aforesaid local commissioner visited the spot and demarcated the suit land in the presence of the parties. Report of demarcation came to be filed before the Court on 5.11.2001, whereafter, matter was adjourned to 5.12.2001 to enable parties to file objections, if any, to the report of the local commissioner. It also emerges from the record that subsequently, opportunity was again granted to the parties to file objections, if any, to the report on or before 18.1.2002, but objections were not filed by the parties to the said report and as such with the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, suit was fixed for conciliation. However, the fact remains that conciliation could not be effected as such court below proceeded to decide the case on the basis of evidence available on record. 12. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate while referring to the demarcation report, Ext. PW-1/A vehemently argued that it is quite apparent from the report that defendants were required to raise a retaining wall abutting to the land of the plaintiff, which being a loose land was open to erosion during rainy season. Mr. 12. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate while referring to the demarcation report, Ext. PW-1/A vehemently argued that it is quite apparent from the report that defendants were required to raise a retaining wall abutting to the land of the plaintiff, which being a loose land was open to erosion during rainy season. Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate states that defendants raised a Pakka retaining wall on their own land and loose land of the plaintiff was protected. Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate further contended that it stands duly proved from the report submitted by local commissioner that house of the defendants was built above lintel level when suit was filed by the plaintiff, as such, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to conclude that the defendant raised construction forcibly during the pendency of the suit by encroaching 0-00-02 hectares of the land of the plaintiff. Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate further contended that though report submitted by local commissioner is not in accordance with law, but even if it is presumed that there was encroachment on the part of the defendants to the extent of 0- 00-02 hectares, which is less than a Biswa, there is nothing on record from where it can be inferred that the plaintiff’s property, in any manner got damaged or impaired in the process of construction, if any, raised on the land allegedly encroached by the defendants, as such, learned Court below instead of passing the impugned judgment and decree ought to have awarded nominal compensation in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate, further contended that as per the report of the local commissioner, there was a difference of measurement of ¼ in Mussabi as such, difference as pointed out by the local commissioner in his report, wherein defendants have been reported to have encroached 0-00-02 hectares of land of belonging to the plaintiff, invalidated the report of the local commissioner, because it has a direct bearing on the correctness of the report given by the local commissioner. Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate further contended that it has been proved that local commissioner has not carried out demarcation as per instructions issued by Financial Commissioner as such, no reliance, if any could be placed by the Court below on the same, while ascertaining the extent of encroachment, if any, allegedly made by the respondents/defendants. 13. Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate further contended that it has been proved that local commissioner has not carried out demarcation as per instructions issued by Financial Commissioner as such, no reliance, if any could be placed by the Court below on the same, while ascertaining the extent of encroachment, if any, allegedly made by the respondents/defendants. 13. This court after having carefully perused the material available on record, specifically report of the local commissioner, Ext. PW-1/A, sees no force in the aforesaid arguments having been made by the learned senior counsel. It stands duly proved on record that local commissioner, who in terms of order passed by learned trial Court visited the spot, carried out demarcation on the suit land in the presence of the parties including defendants. There is nothing on record from it can be inferred that local commissioner, while carrying out demarcation of the suit land failed to comply with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner with regard to demarcation. Though, Rajinder Singh (DW-1), while deposing before the Court stated that his land abuts the suit land and demarcation was not carried out by the local commissioner properly, but in his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that Shri Rai Singh, was his attorney and in March, 1999, he had sworn affidavit Ext. PA and gave it to the plaintiff. He also stated that when he started the work, plaintiff objected to it and asked him to carry out construction work in accordance with the terms of affidavit (Ext. PA). 14. Most importantly, he in his cross-examination, admitted the factum with regard to visit of the local commissioner on the spot. He also admitted that the statements Ext. PW-1/D and Ext. PW-1/E were recorded by local commissioner and these bear his signatures. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that demarcation was accepted by him on the spot and he did not file any objections against the report of demarcation. There is nothing in the statement of Rajinder Singh (DW-1), from where it can be inferred that local commissioner while carrying out demarcation failed to associate all the parties and he proceeded to carry out demarcation merely on the basis of instructions of the parties present on the spot. There is nothing in the statement of Rajinder Singh (DW-1), from where it can be inferred that local commissioner while carrying out demarcation failed to associate all the parties and he proceeded to carry out demarcation merely on the basis of instructions of the parties present on the spot. As has been take note above, that though DW-1 while deposing before the court below stated that local commissioner failed to give demarcation on the spot in accordance with law, but there is nothing on record to substantiate aforesaid allegation. 15. DW-1 Rajinder Singh, in his cross-examination categorically admitted that local commissioner recorded his statement and statement of his father before demarcation of the suit land was carried out. He also admitted that he had admitted fixed points to be correct before demarcation was carried out. Similarly, perusal of Ext. PW-1/D, statement of defendant No.1 and his father, shows that though they feigned ignorance with respect to correctness of the fixed points but did not dispute the fixed points, which were recognized by the local commissioner before carrying out demarcation. Perusal of report, Ext. PW-1/A clearly suggests that local commissioner prepared spot map on the basis of Musabi , which is Ext. PW- 1/F, wherein, encroachment to the extent of 0-00-02 hectares was shown over the suit land. 16. Similarly, DW-1 Rajinder Singh, in his cross-examination admitted that statement Ext. PW-1/E was made by him after demarcation, vide which he admitted that a small portion of suit land was found in their possession. Apart from above, father of the defendant Rajinder Singh, namely Gian Chand, also admitted that small portion of the suit land was found in their possession. 17. Leaving everything aside, as has been taken note above, defendants never raised any objection before the trial Court regarding correctness of demarcation given by local commissioner as such, plea, as has been raised by the learned Senior Advocate during arguments, deserves to be rejected out-rightly, being not tenable. 18. DW-1 for the fist time in his statement before the learned Court below, stated that demarcation was not given in accordance with law because, distance of point C to A as per Mussabi Ext. 18. DW-1 for the fist time in his statement before the learned Court below, stated that demarcation was not given in accordance with law because, distance of point C to A as per Mussabi Ext. PW-1/F was wrongly marked as 40 metres, because as per Mussabi, same was 39 metres and ¾ in the revenue paper, but as has been observed above, since no objection was ever raised by the defendants at the time of demarcation, statement, if any, given by the defendant during his examination-in-chief/cross-examination has no relevance, as far as correctness of the report of local commissioner is concerned. Otherwise also, perusal of report submitted by local commissioner Ext. PW-1/A suggests that the local commissioner in his report has only stated that against point ‘C’, there was a difference of measurement of ¼ in Mussabi on the spot, but said difference does not invalidate report of the local commissioner, because he has categorically explained said difference to be negligible and not significant as far as correctness of the demarcation given by him is concerned. 19. PW-1 (plaintiff) Shri Fateh Singh, PW-2 Mehar Chand and PW-3 Prem Chand, have categorically stated before the Court below that suit land belongs to the plaintiff and his brothers and defendants have no right, title or interest over the same. Similarly, all these witnesses have categorically stated that during the pendency of the case i.e. in the month of June, 1999, defendant raised construction over the part of suit land forcibly, which factum has been further substantiated/corroborated with the report of the local commissioner. Ext. PW-1/A as well as statements made by the parties before the local commissioner, Ext. PW-1/B to Ext. PW-1/E further proves on record factum with regard to construction raised by the defendants over the suit land during the pendency of the civil suit having been filed by the plaintiff. As per Tatima Ext. PW-1/F, defendants raised construction over the land owned by plaintiff and as such, learned Court below rightly ordered for demolition of the same. 20. PW-1/E further proves on record factum with regard to construction raised by the defendants over the suit land during the pendency of the civil suit having been filed by the plaintiff. As per Tatima Ext. PW-1/F, defendants raised construction over the land owned by plaintiff and as such, learned Court below rightly ordered for demolition of the same. 20. Defendants, with a view to prove their case, produced in evidence, affidavits of Rajinder Singh, Chain Singh and Kartar Singh, but the facts remains that Chain Singh and Kartar Singh were never presented for cross-examination and as such, versions contained in the affidavits furnished by them were rightly not taken into consideration by the court below in the absence of specific statement on their behalf that demarcation was conducted in their presence but same was not in accordance with law. Even defendant namely Rajinder Singh in his cross-examination admitted that he had given Power of Attorney to Rai Singh and in the month of March, 1999, he had given affidavit of Rai Singh Ext. PA to the plaintiff. Perusal of Ext. PA clearly suggests that dispute with regard to construction of Danga/retaining wall arose between plaintiff and defendants and with a view to settle the same, Rajinder Singh through Rai Singh, undertook to construct Danga in the third week of June 1999, in the land bearing Khasra No. 177 owned and possessed by the defendants. Since defendants failed to construct the Danga, before rainy season, cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in the month of June, 1999. 21. Now, it would be appropriate to deal with the specific objection raised by the learned counsel representing the respondents with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction of this Court, while examining the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. Mr. Ajay Sharma, invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the 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 the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the 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 the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, 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.” (p.269) 22. Perusal of the judgment, referred hereinabove, suggests that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. There can be no quarrel (dispute) with regard to aforesaid observation made by the Court and true it is that in normal circumstances High Courts, while exercising powers under Section 100 CPC, are restrained from re-appreciating the evidence available on record, but as emerges from the case referred above, there is no complete bar for this Court to upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below, if the same appears to be perverse. 23. In this regard reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) through LRs and Others vs. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) through LRs and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 161 wherein the Court held: “35. The learned counsel for the defendants relied on the judgment of this Court in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006)5 SCC 545 , wherein the principles relating to Section 100 of the CPC were summarized in para 24, which is extracted below : (SCC pp.555-56) “24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision based on no evidence”, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” We have to place reliance on the afore-mentioned case to hold that the High Court has framed substantial questions of law as per Section 100 of the CPC, and there is no error in the judgment of the High Court in this regard and therefore, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the same.” (pp.174-175) 24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Parminder Singh versus Gurpreet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2009, decided on 25.7.2017, has held as under: “(14) In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the three courts on facts, which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken by the three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court. Indeed, such findings were equally binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal. (15) It is more so when these findings were neither found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings nor these findings were found to be against the evidence, nor against the pleadings and lastly, nor against any provision of law.” 25. It is quite apparent from aforesaid exposition of law that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the learned Courts below can not be interfered with unless same are found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings. In the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail, there is no perversity as such in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence as such, same deserve to be upheld. 26. In the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail, there is no perversity as such in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence as such, same deserve to be upheld. 26. This court after having carefully perused the evidence led on record by the respective parties sees substantial force in the arguments of Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the plaintiff that learned Courts below while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is proper appreciation of the evidence by both the learned Courts below. 27. This court after having carefully gone through the evidence available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that both the learned Courts below have appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and there is no mis-appreciation of the evidence, as such, substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 28. Consequently, in view of discussion above, there is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed. Judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are upheld. Pending application are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.