JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree in respect of theirs being entitled for vacant possession of the suit land being rendered qua thereto, was, under concurrent pronouncements recorded thereon by both the learned Courts below, hence, dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owner of a house situated over the land measuring 308 square meters situate in mauja Sirinagar, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P, which their predecessor Ram Rattan had let out to one Mangat Ram on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- per month about 55 years back and in the year 1970, the rent was increase to Rs.20/- per month. Mangat Ram said to have died on 10.02.1989 and after his demise the tenancy was alleged to have been paid regularly upto June, 1995, but from July, 1995 onwards the respondent/defendant refused to pay the rent. Accordingly, her tenancy was terminated by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, of 30.1.1997 and she was asked to handover the vacant possession and to pay the rent upto date. On failure of the defendant to handover the vacant possession a suit was filed for possession and recovery before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat in the year 1997. In the said suit the respondent/defendant is said to have taken the plea of she being the owner of the property by denying the title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the trial Court for possession on the basis of title. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, she denied the state of the plaintiffs that the Mangat Ram was tenant in the demised premises on payment of rent. It is averred that Mangat Ram built up the house in question more than 40 years back on the land in question which was possessed by Mangat Ram openly continuously exclusively to the knowledge of every one as owner. Mangat Ram had already became owner of the property including the property in question and has bequeathed his entire property including the property in question in favour of the defendant by a registered Will of 5.6.1985. Mangat Ram had already became owner of the property including the property in question and has bequeathed his entire property including the property in question in favour of the defendant by a registered Will of 5.6.1985. It was denied that on the demise of Mangat Ram, the tenancy was transferred in her name at the monthly rent of Rs.100/- per month. The defendant also denied the factum of hers being in arrears of rent and also liable to pay mesne profit. 4. 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 for possession of the suit premises, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.? OPD. 5. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? 6. Relief. 5. 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 before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. 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 01.12.2006, 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 in the absence of the specific pleadings the two Courts below were justified in assuming that plea of adverse possession had been taken by the respondent-defendant? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 4. 7. The defendant, is the successor-in-interest of one Mangat Ram. Whether in the absence of the specific pleadings the two Courts below were justified in assuming that plea of adverse possession had been taken by the respondent-defendant? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 4. 7. The defendant, is the successor-in-interest of one Mangat Ram. She resisted the suit of the plaintiffs, for possession of the suit khasra numbers, (i) on anvil of her predecessor-in-interest, one Mangat Ram, raising about 40 years back, a house on suit khasra numbers, thereafter with an animus possidendi, his unbrokenly to the knowledge, of the true owners, holding possession thereof, for the statutorily enjoined period of time, for his hence being construable, to perfect his title thereon, by prescription. She has propounded, Will borne in Ex. DA, executed in her favour by her predecessor-in-interest one Mangat Ram, to, espouse that (a) with her predecessor-in-interest, perfecting, his title by prescription upon the suit land, his also holding the befitting legal capacity, to execute a testamentary disposition, in respect thereto; (b) thereupon hers, on his demise acquiring title vis-a-vis the suit land. 8. The learned counsel appearing, for the plaintiffs/appellants herein, has contended that the pleadings reared by the defendant in her written statement, wherein, she has echoed of her predecessorin- interest, with an animus possidendi, during, his life time holding settled possession vis-a-vis the suit khasra numbers, especially for the statutorily mandated period of time, for his hence perfecting title thereon, by adverse possession (a) is nebulously reared nor any recital with specificity in timing vis-a-vis commencements, with an animus possidendi, of possession of suit khasra numbers, by one Mangat Ram, occurrs therein, (b) the execution, of testamentary disposition, by Mangat Ram vis-a-vis the contesting defendant being not proven in accordance with law, given the marginal witnesses thereto, not stepping into the witness box; (c) thereupon, even if assumingly, the contesting defendant, holds a bequest vis-a-vis the suit khasra numbers, thereupon, lack of proof of its valid and due execution, within the domain of mandatory statutory provisions borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act; (d) render the apposite rights conferred thereunder upon the contesting defendant being not bestowable vis-a-vis her. 9. 9. A careful reading of the contentions reared, by the contesting defendant, in her written statement, do add succor, to the contention addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing, for the appellants/plaintiffs, (i) of, theirs being nebulously averred nor theirs with exactitude, delineating the commencement of period of holding of possession, with an animus possidendi, by one Mangat Ram upon suit khasra numbers. Even though, the aforesaid infirmity exists in the aforesaid pleadings, cast in the written statement reared by the defendant, yet when the plaintiff Tek Singh, stepped into the witness box, he has scored off all effects thereof, (i) especially when in his cross-examination, he has admitted suggestions, put to him by the counsel, for the defendant, inasmuch as (a) of Mangat Ram in the year 1947-48 raising construction beyond and in addition, vis-a-vis the area, whereon, he was purportedly inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs. (b) His also acquiescing, to a suggestion put to him, by the counsel for the defendant, of, the aforesaid Mangat Ram, during, his life time and thereafter, the contesting defendant holding possession of the suit khasra numbers. (c) The effect of the aforesaid acquiescences is of hence, the plaintiffs conceding, of Mangat Ram, commencing, his adverse possession, upon suit khasra number, in the year 1947, when he (d) extended portion of the purported demised premises, by his making additions and extensions thereto. (e) The aforesaid acts, being overt acts, of Mangat Ram, besides theirs constituting, his openly denying the title of the plaintiffs vis-a-vis the suit khasra numbers, (f), hence the plaintiffs scoring off the effects of the defendant's omissions, to with precision besides with exactitude, ascribe commencements, with an animus possidendi, of possession by one Mangat Ram upon suit khasra number. 10. Furthermore, admissions existing, in the cross-examination, of plaintiff Tek Singh, of the contesting defendant being the adoptive daughter, of deceased Mangat Ram, thereupon, his admitting the execution of Ex. DA, renders Ex. 10. Furthermore, admissions existing, in the cross-examination, of plaintiff Tek Singh, of the contesting defendant being the adoptive daughter, of deceased Mangat Ram, thereupon, his admitting the execution of Ex. DA, renders Ex. DA, to, not hence warrant, its proof in the manner as enjoined by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the reason being (a) with the plaintiff, not, establishing that, apart from, the contesting defendant, there being other befitting legal heirs of deceased Mangat Ram, hence, when the latter alone purportedly held the befitting locus standi, to assail the testamentary disposition of deceased testator Mangat Ram, (b) thereupon, with the plaintiffs, not, holding the befitting locus standi, to impeach the validity of Ex. DA, (b) rather his faintly denying the execution Ex. DA, given its not bearing his signature, given deceased Mangat Ram scribing his signature, on, a document in Urdu, whereas his signatures in English existing upon Ex. DA, is also ridden with falsity, given Ex. DA carrying the signatures of deceased testator therein, though in English, whereas, thereafter, the plaintiffs, not, concerting to rid them, of their authenticity, by eliciting any apposite legal opinion, being rendered by the handwriting expert concerned, (c) hence, renders the Ex. DA to be a validly executed document, dehors proof hence not forthcoming in respect of its valid execution in the manner envisaged under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Even otherwise, with the plaintiff in his cross-examination, acquiescing, to a suggestion, of, the plaintiff extantly holding possession of the extant suit khasra numbers besides his voicing in his cross-examination, of, the contesting defendant being the adoptive daughter, of deceased testator Mangat Ram, (d) paramountly also his facilitating proof, of, one Mangat Ram perfecting his title by prescription upon the suit khasra number also hence, do not warrant, of, Ex. DA being enjoined, to be proven in accordance with the provisions enshrined in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, (e) imperatively when hers being the adoptive daughter of Mangat Ram, also hers holding possession of the suit khasra numbers, was, on demise of Mangat Ram, solitarily entitled to inherit the suit khasra numbers. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as 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 aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent and against the plaintiff. 12. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.