JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the concurrently recorded verdicts of the learned Courts below, whereby, they dismissed the suit of the plaintiff wherein he claimed relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit land as also for demarcation and in alternative for possession. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the original plaintiff Gian Chand had filed a suit against the defendant for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the land comprised in Khata No.44, Khatauni No. 44 min, khasra Nos. 3, 80, 82, kita 3, measuring 3 kanals 15 marlas situated in Tiko Kharoh, Tappa Matti Morian, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. and also for demarcation of the same. It is averred that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants have no concern with it. It was alleged that the defendant being head strong and quarrelsome person, started interference over the suit land without any right, title or interest and also threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement wherein they have pleaded that the land of the defendants adjoining to the suit land and it stands already demarcated by the revenue authorities and parties were found in possession of their respective land as per the demarcation report. It is further pleaded that the defendants neither raised any construction nor interfered with the suit land. It is further pleaded that in case the defendants were found to be in possession of any part of the suit land, in that case, the defendants had become the owner of the same by way of adverse possession. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 2. 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 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. 6. OPP. 2. 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 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. 6. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 21.11.2006 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 questions of law:- 1. Whether the report of the Local Commissioner, appointed vide order dated 10.03.1995 is beyond the scope of reference made to him and it ought not to have been relied upon for deciding the matter? Substantial question of Law No.1. 7. Both the learned Courts below had declined the apposite relief to the plaintiff by placing reliance upon the report of the Local Commissioner embodied in Ex. LX, whereto copy of aks musabi embodied in Ex. L-1 stood appended. Both the learned Courts below had imputed implicit reliance to the report of the Local Commissioner, also they dispelled the vigour of the objections purveyed thereto by the plaintiff. The impugned verdicts recorded by both the learned Courts below apparently spur from theirs grossly mis-appraising, the import of the apposite pleadings constituted in the plaint besides in the written statement. Short shrift, by both the learned Courts below to the apposite averments constituted in the plaint by the plaintiff, qua his holding possessory title qua the suit land besides visible gross overlookings by both the learned Courts below vis-a-vis the written statement furnished thereto by the defendants, wherein they acquiesce qua both the litigating parties in consonance with a previous demarcation, hence holding possession qua tracts of lands demarcated thereunder, has palpably engendered erroneous findings standing returned, on the apposite issue. 8. 8. The import of the acquiescence of the defendants in their written statement furnished to the plaint qua the contentious boundaries standing previously demarcated by the Revenue Agency concerned, in sequel, whereto each holding possession of tracts of land, is qua theirs bespeaking with candour qua the plaintiff not encroaching upon the land of the defendants abutting his land also the effect of the aforesaid acquiescence is qua the defendants not holding any grievance qua the plaintiff nor theirs espousing qua encroachment, if any, carried by the plaintiff upon theirs land, standing ordered by the Court for its apt determination by a Local Commissioner. Moreover, the defendants omitted, for succoring their espousal even if veiledly ventilated in their written statement qua theirs holding only portion of the suit land in pursuance to a previous demarcation carried by the Revenue Authorities concerned to adduce evidence in consonance thereto, comprised in their placing on record the report of the demarcating officer concerned. Omission of the defendants to place on record the report of the demarcating officer prepared by the latter previous to the report of the demarcating officer, hereat comprised in Ex.LX nor their concerting to seek appointment of a Local Commissioner for re-demarcating the suit land, is a stark display qua the defendants acquiescing qua the plaintiff not encroaching upon any portion of their land abutting the land of the plaintiff also thereupon an inference stands engendered qua theirs accepting the claim of the plaintiff. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings constituted respectively in the plaint besides in the written statement, the effect of the report of the Local Commissioner embodied in Ex. LX whereon implicit reliance stand placed upon by the learned Courts below stands enjoined to be tested besides the effect of the learned trial Court recording an order on 10.03.1995, for appointment of a Local Commissioner for visiting the relevant site, for determining qua whether the defendants carrying out encroachments upon the land of the plaintiff whereas the demarcating Officer concerned in transgression thereto preparing his report embodied in Ex.LX making unfoldments therein qua the plaintiff encroaching upon the land of the defendants, legality of transgression whereof also stands enjoined to be tested. 10. 10. The reference made to the Local Commissioner under the apposite orders recorded on 10.03.1995, was to determine qua the defendants encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff, thereupon, he stood enjoined to revere the mandate held therewithin. However, the Local Commissioner proceeded to irrevere the scope of the apposite reference, comprised in his unfolding in his report qua the plaintiff encroaching upon the land of the defendant whereupon, hence, with the Local Commissioner, travelling beyond the scope of the reference, stains his report with a vice of his holding leanings towards the defendants, evident display whereof stands unearthed in his report Ex. Lx wherein he proposed action against both the plaintiff besides his counsel, for their refusal to append their signagtures on their statements wherewithin they purveyed their objections qua the demarcation conducted by him. The evident bias of the Local Commissioner concerned also benumbs the efficacy of his report embodied in Ex. LX. The objections purveyed by the deceased plaintiff before the learned trial Court whereon he assailed the report of the Local Commissioner comprised in Ex. LX, make loud echoings qua the demarcating officer not holding the demarcation of the suit land in consonance with the apposite rules and regulations. The aforesaid objections warranted determination under a speaking order standing pronounced thereon. However, both the learned Courts below proceeded to impute implicit reliance or credibility to the report of the Local Commissioner comprised in Ex. LX, despite his proceeding to demarcate the suit land in gross detraction of the scope of the apposite reference whereon he was directed to ascertain the encroachment made by the defendants upon the suit land. Also the belittling by both the learned Courts below of the aforesaid acquiescence s of the defendants qua the plaintiff not encroaching upon their land assumes significance comprised in its conveying qua both the learned Courts below despite the defendants not hence instituting any counterclaim to the apposite plaint of the plaintiffs, theirs proceedings to impute leverage to the report of the local Commissioner, imputation of sanctity whereof tantamounts to their leveraging an unespoused claim of the defendant also theirs discreetly pronouncing a decree qua them despite its standing never claimed whereupon a gross injustice has ensued to the plaintiff besides travesty to the pleadings has occurred. 11. 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 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 has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants and against the defendants/respondents. 12. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed and the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the defendants are restrained from interfering in th suit land comprised in Khata No.44, min, Khataoni NO.44 min, Khasra No.3, 80, 82 measuring 3 kanals 15 marlas situated in Tika Kharoh, Tappa Matti Morian, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P., in any manner whatsoever through themselves or through their authorized agents, servants and family members etc. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.