JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby, it reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, whereby, the latter Court had decree the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants and proforma respondent on the allegations that on 15.06.1973, he had encroached upon the suit land measuring 3-9 bighas, comprising khasra No. 1172/1043, 1168/1041, 1162/1038, Khata No. 185/155, Khatoni No. 221, situated in village Changer Talai, Pargna Bachhretu, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. by cultivating it, cutting grass from its portion and putting thorny bushes on its boundary. Since then, he has been in continuous, open and peaceful possession of it and that his possession was never objected by the defendants or anybody else, who were in the knowledge of the same. In this way, he has acquired the right of ownership by virtue of adverse possession. It was further averred that on 30.07.2000, the defendants openly threatened to dispossess him from the suit land despite repeated requests, but of no avail. Against this back drop a prayer was made for declaration that the plaintiff has been owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession and that revenue entries showing the defendants to be owners in possession of the same are wrong and further to restrain the defendants permanently from causing interference, in any manner, in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability of the suit, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel and valuation of the suit. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land. In fact, the suit land has been in the ownership and possession of the defendants and that the revenue entires are correct as per factual position. It was also denied that on 15.06.1973, the plaintiff encroached upon the suit land. Since, he has not been in possession of the suit land, no question arises of his having acquired title by way of adverse possession. 4. It was also denied that on 15.06.1973, the plaintiff encroached upon the suit land. Since, he has not been in possession of the suit land, no question arises of his having acquired title 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 has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether revenue entries in the name of defendants are wrong, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued, as alleged? OPD 9. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendants/respondents before the learned First Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed 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 11.08.2008, 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 impugned judgment and decree is a result of misreading and misinterpretation of evidence and statements of PW-1 and DW1? Substantial question of Law No. 1. 7. The plaintiff had averred in the plaint that he had commenced his possession upon the suit land on 15.06.1973. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is a result of misreading and misinterpretation of evidence and statements of PW-1 and DW1? Substantial question of Law No. 1. 7. The plaintiff had averred in the plaint that he had commenced his possession upon the suit land on 15.06.1973. However, absence of pointed pleadings, cast in the plaint nor elucidations occurring in the plaint qua the true owners against whom the plaintiff rears an espousal that he, with an animus possidendi commencing possession of the suit land in the year 1973, besides evidence in respect thereto being also amiss, constrained the learned First Appellate Court to draw a conclusion, that with the “trite rubric” for the plaintiff obtaining success in his plea, of his since 1973 upto the date of the institution of the suit, with an animus possedendi holding possession of the suit land, hence, his acquiring prescriptive title thereto, “comprised” in the factum of his pleading besides proving the true owner against whom his apposite assertion of acquisition of title by adverse possession is espoused in the suit to be hence accomplished, whereas, it evidently remaining unaccomplished, that his suit warranting dismissal. The aforesaid conclusion formed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any fallibility, conspicuously, when the length and duration of possession of the plaintiff upon the suit land is per se not sufficient, to erect a firm conclusion that hence the plaintiff holds possession of the suit land with the requisite animus possedendi besides when the plaintiff's endeavour to seek a declaratory decree, of his ripening, his title by prescription, arising from his completing the statutorily enjoined period of time, commencing from 1973 upto the institution of the suit “also enjoined” him to with specificity plead the name of the true owner against whom, he rears his pleadings, “whereas” want of pleadings in respect thereto beside concomitantly non adduction of evidence in respect thereto, necessarily foments an inference that the essential rubric aforesaid standing not pleaded nor proven by cogent evidence. In aftermath, the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff by the learned First Appellate Court does not warrant any interference. 8. The learned trial Court, had depended upon the testimony of DW-1 Smt. Satya Devi, wherein, she had admitted the factum of the plaintiff holding possession of the suit land from the year 1973, hence, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 8. The learned trial Court, had depended upon the testimony of DW-1 Smt. Satya Devi, wherein, she had admitted the factum of the plaintiff holding possession of the suit land from the year 1973, hence, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. However, the learned First Appellate Court, had concluded that her testimony does not garner the necessary strength, for enhancing the apposite plea of the plaintiff, significantly, when she was in the year 1973 not married to Ram Prakash, hence, her testimony that the plaintiff held possession of the suit land in the year aforesaid, does not beget any inference qua its holding any credibility. Also assumingly, if the testimony of DW-1 that the plaintiff commenced possession of the suit land in the year 1973 is credible, yet credibility thereof stands eroded by the fact, of a display occurring in her testimony that the plaintiff after taking possession of the suit land in the year 1973, his holding possession thereof only for two years, whereafter the possession of the suit land being held by the defendants. The latter part of the testification of DW-1, garners support from Ex.PA, exhibit whereof is the jamabandi with respect to the suit land, wherein a display occurs of the defendants/respondents being owners-in-possession of the suit land. The aforesaid display occurring in Ex. PA, enjoys a presumption of truth, presumption of truth whereof enjoyed by Ex.PA though is re-buttable, yet no evidence either cogent or of immense strength, stands adduced by the plaintiff, to dislodge the prima facie truth enjoyed by the relevant display occurring in Ex. PA. Consequently, with the pleadings of the plaintiff being wholly astray from the basic rubric, of the names of the owners against whom the plea of adverse possession is asserted with respect to the suit land, warranting occurrence therein nor any evidence in respect thereto standing adduced besides when the oral testification of the plaintiff's witnesses, emanates from persons whose lands are located remotely from the disputed suit property also when both are unable to name the true owner of the suit land, hence, oral testifications of the plaintiff's witnesses is extremely fragile, for constraining this Court to conclude that theirs hence dislodging the presumption of truth enjoyed by the relevant displays occurring in Ex.PA. 9. 9. Be that as it may, the rearing of the plea of adverse possession by the plaintiff with respect to the suit land also his endevouring to prove that by elapse of the statutorily prescribed period commencing from 1973 upto the date of institution of the suit, his prolonged possession ripening into prescriptive title vis-a-vis the suit land, is a plea which has been pronounced in a catena of verdicts rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, to be a plea unavailable for espousal by the plaintiff rather it being a plea available for espousal only by the defendant. Consequently, with the plaintiff standing interdicted by a catena of judicial verdicts to rear a plea qua his acquiring title by adverse possession with respect to the suit land, hence, thereupon, also the suit of the plaintiff warrants dismissal. 10. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court is based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the defendants/respondents and against the plaintiffs/appellants. 11. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2007 is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.