JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Both the learned Courts below under concurrently recorded pronouncement, upon, Civil Suit No. 108 of 2000, hence decreed the plaintiffs'' sit for injunction, vis-a-vis, Khasra No. 1440/1337 and also concurrently decreed the plaintiffs'' suit for vacant possession in respect to Khasra Nos. 1440/1337/1 and 1440/1337/2, respectively measuring 0-0-17 and 0-1-15 Bigha, and, also thereafter making pronouncement for demolition o the structure raised thereon. Moreover, both the learned Courts below dismissed, the defendants'' counter claim, whereunder, they espoused qua theirs becoming owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Being aggrieved, therefrom, the defendants/counter claimants have instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the the plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction against the defendants with the averments that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property, measuring 0-4- 14 bighas and land measuring 1-6-0 bighas, comprising Khasra No. 1440/1337 and 1338 min/1339 min along with house situate at Mauja Passal/6, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit land from Smt. Kaushlya Devi by way of sale deeds dated 9.5.2000 for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 3,40,000/- respectively. The defendants intended to purchase the suit land and on account of sale, they got annoyed and started interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. So, the plaintiffs brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land along with decree for possession, in the alternative. The plaintiffs, by way of amendment have claimed possession of land measuring 0-0-17 bighas compromising Khasra No.1440/1337/1 and land measuring 0-1-15 bighas comprising Khasra No. 1440/1337/2 on which the defendants have trespassed after filing the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections, inter alia, jurisdiction and malafide intention. On merits, it is averred that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. The defendants were in possession of the land measuring 0-2-12 bigha, comrpising Khasra No. 1440/1337/1 and 1440/1337/2. The defendants had been in possession of the suit land since 1969. The defendants had raised pucca structure with fence over the suit land. The possession of the defendants over the suit land was peaceful, open, continuous and hostile. The defendants were in possession of the land measuring 0-2-12 bigha, comrpising Khasra No. 1440/1337/1 and 1440/1337/2. The defendants had been in possession of the suit land since 1969. The defendants had raised pucca structure with fence over the suit land. The possession of the defendants over the suit land was peaceful, open, continuous and hostile. The defendants have acquired title over the suit land. 4. The defendants have filed counter claim with the averments that are owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs filed written statement to the counter claim and raised preliminary objection about maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, it is averred that the father of defendant No.1 or defendants were never in possession of the suit land. The suit land is in possession of the plaintiffs by virtue of sale deed dated 9.5.2000 executed by one Smt. Kaushlya Devi in their favour. 5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP 1(a) Whether the defendants have occupied part of the suit land during the pendency of the suit?OPP. 1(b) If Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the suit land?OPP 1(c) Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and try the present suit?OPD. 2. Whether the defendants NO.1 to 6 have become owner by way of adverse possession upon Khasra Nos. 1440/1337/1 and 1440/1337/2 as alleged for last 31 years?OPD. 3. Whether the counter claim is not maintainable as alleged?OPD. 4. Whether the defendants have no locus standi and cause of action to file counter claim?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the suit?OPD. 6. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein, whereas, it dismissed the counter-claim of the defendants. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the suit?OPD. 6. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein, whereas, it dismissed the counter-claim of the defendants. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the defendants/appellants herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the defendants/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, this Court, on 5.03.2010, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the Ld. First Appellate Court and the ld. Trial Court are a result of complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and the law as applicable to the facts of the case and particularly document exhibits DW2/A to Ex.DW2/E as also Exhibit Dx and DY and as such palpably erroneous and illegal and if so to what effect? 2. Whether the order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the appellants under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is vitiated with material illegality, irregularity and impropriety and has further resulted into miscarriage of justice to the appellants and if so to what effect? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 9. Uncontrovertedly, the plaintiffs acquired, the suit land through registered deeds of conveyance, executed inter se them, and, one Kaushalya Devi, registered deeds of conveyance whereof, stand executed on 9.5.2000. As apparent, upon, a perusal of Ex. Dy, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was, thereunder hence allotted by way of Nautor, land measuring 0-15-5 bighas. It appears, that, the land aforesaid, as granted by way of Nautor, under Ex. Dy, visa-vis, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants/counter-claimants, rather adjoins the suit khasra numbers. As apparent, upon, a perusal of Ex. Dy, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was, thereunder hence allotted by way of Nautor, land measuring 0-15-5 bighas. It appears, that, the land aforesaid, as granted by way of Nautor, under Ex. Dy, visa-vis, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants/counter-claimants, rather adjoins the suit khasra numbers. Furthermore, it appears, that, upon occurrence, of, grant, in the year 1969, of land borne in Ex Dy, qua the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, (i) qua thereupon, the defendants/counter-claimants, hence, being encouraged to espouse a plea qua even with respect, to, the adjoining thereto, suit kahsra numbers, theirs since 1969, through, their predecessorin-interest, holding, with an animus possidendi, possession thereof, (ii) and, with the apt statutorily enjoined period, of time, elapsing therefrom upto now, theirs hence perfecting title thereto, by prescription. However, the aforesaid plea, is, amenable to founder, (iii) given Ex. Dy, whereunder, the predecessor-in-interest, of the defendants was allotted, by way of Nautor, land adjoining to the suit khasra numbers, rather not therein hence making any visible echoings, qua the precise location(s) and dimension(s) of the land depicted therein, (iv), whereas, delineations with precision, and, with specificity, were, rather enjoined to be displayed, qua land, depicted in Ex. Dy, being ascribed thereto, a, kahsra number(s), also, therewith an apt tatima, was, enjoined to be appended. However, Ex. Dy, being ascribed thereto, a, kahsra number(s), also, therewith an apt tatima, was, enjoined to be appended. However, Ex. Dy, is silent about the aforesaid factum probandum, (v) thereupon absence of earmarking(s), and, elucidations with precision, and, with exactitude, vis-a-vis, the land depicted therein, hence being a part of the suit kahsra numbers, of, its mingling therewithin, (vi) whereas, apt or clear delineations aforestated, rather would bring forth hence candid evidence, in, respect of the defendants/counter claimants, through, their predecessor-in-interest, with an animus possidendi, purportedly, since 1969, hence holding possession of a part, of the suit khasra numbers, (vii) and, also concomitantly with an alike animus possidendi, theirs holding possession thereof, with, the open knowledge, of, the alienor of the plaintiffs, (viii) also whereuon, it would be further aptly concludable, qua the trite element, hence, ingraining the principle, of, adverse possession, comprised in all concerned, being awakened, vis-a-vis, the apt adversarial invasions, upon the suit kahsra number(s), rather begetting apt satiation, (ix) whereas, absence, of, the aforesaid evidence, constrains this Court to conclude, qua the aforesaid plea of adverse possession, foisted upon the defendants/counter-claimants, in, the year 1969, through, their predecessor-in-interest, holding with an animus possidendi, possession of the suit land, and, also possession thereof being open, and, to the knowledge of the vendor of the plaintiffs, (x) rather contrarily, being nebulously raised, nor, it being anchored upon apt pleadings, nor apt evidence therewith standing adduced, hence rendering it obviously to founder. 10. Furthermore, even if, the defendants/counterclaimants, through, their predecessor-in-interest, assumingly, held possession, since, 1969, of, the suit khasra numbers, (a) thereupon, given the apt allotment, of, the land, being made, in the year 1969, to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, (b) AND, since then, its, purportedly forming a part of the suit khasra numbers or its purportedly mingling therewithin, hence, enjoined the counter-claimants/defendants, to, adduce further evidence, qua, the apt possession held by their predecessor-in-interest, of, land granted to him, by way of Nautor, in the year 1969, not bearing consonance with the area allotted therein qua him, or evidence was also enjoined to be adduced, qua their predecessor-ininterest, being dissatisfied with the possession taken by him, of, land, granted to him, in pursuance to Ex. Dy, (c) rather his though making an apposite espousal, before the authorities concerned, hence, seeking assured determination, of the dimensions, and, locations of land, alloted qua him, under Ex. Dy. Dy, (c) rather his though making an apposite espousal, before the authorities concerned, hence, seeking assured determination, of the dimensions, and, locations of land, alloted qua him, under Ex. Dy. However, the aforesaid evidence remains unadduced, (d) thereupon, it is to be invincibly concluded, that, the apt possession obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, in pursuance to Ex. Dy, bearing square concurrence, with the apt recitals, borne, in Ex. Dy, and, also hence his being not aggrieved by the apt possession as taken, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the making of Ex. Dy. Even if, assumingly, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants/counter-claimants, was, holding possession of the suit kahsra numbers, since 1969, thereupon, also the predecessor-in-interest, of, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, and, the latter, the apt vendor of the plaintiffs, would assuredly, be sparked to agitate qua the adversarial act, vis-a-vis, their right, title and interest, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers. Even Kaushalya Devi has not made any bespeakings qua thereof, rather with a tatima being appended, with the apt sale deeds, and, when in contemporaneity thereto, also possession(s) being handed over, qua the plaintiffs, and, apt reflections, in consonance therewith, also occurring in the jamabandi, appertaining to the suit land, (e) thereupon, it is to be concluded, that, the alienor of the plaintiff, throughout, holding possession of the suit khasra numbers, and, the defendants/counter-claimants, misfounding, a, plea qua theirs rather even during the longevity, of hers holding ownership, and, possession thereof, and, to her knowledge, hence holding possession thereof. 11. Be that as it may, the learned Courts below had assigned probative vigour, to, Ex. Ex.DW2/A to Ex.DW2/E, all exhibits whereof, stood, prepared in the year 2000, hence, much subsequent to the year, whereat, the purported adverse possession, vis-a-vis, suit khasra number, is, espoused to commence, (a) especially in the year 1969, whereat, the apt purported commencement, of, encroachments, by the defendants/counter-claimants, upon, an area reflected therein, hence, apparently purportedly occurred, upon, the suit khasra numbers, (b) veracity of all the recitals borne in the demarcation report(s), carries immense strength, given Ex.DW2/A, making a clear, unveiling, of one Ajay Rathore, arrayed as a defendant, also taking part in the demarcation proceedings, and, yet his only orally acquiescing, to, the demarcation conducted, by the demarcating officer, and rather his refusing to sign, his aptly drawn acquiescing statement, given, the land adjoining to the suit land being owned by his father Besar Singh. With his orally acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the echoings made in the apt demarcation report(s), he is hence estopped to contend, that, it acquires no validity, and, is, also unworthwhile, for, setting at rest, the controversy engaging the parties at contest. Obviously, when, in contemporaneity, with, holding of demarcation, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, as, adjoin the land of the counter-claimants/defendants, the apt encroachments, hence, stood noticed, encroachments whereof also, for reasons aforestated, stand acquiesced by the defendants, (c) thereupon, with the defendants, hence contradicting the espoused plea of adverse possession, inasmuch, as theirs espousing, qua, it, commencing from the year 1969, (d) Contradiction whereof, apparently surfacing, given their apt knowledge qua the apt encroachments, hence, erupting only in the year 2000, thereupon hence for evident want of earlier thereto apt knowledge, by the alienor of the plaintiffs or vis-a-vis the plaintiffs, (e) does render unsatiated, the, trite principles, ingraining, the, rearing, of, a valid plea of adverse possession, (f) principles whereof, are, comprised in the apt possession of the suit land, remaining known, and, openly proclaimed, to be, adversarial, vis-a-vis, the apt opponent, in, the legal combat, (g) and whereas, it remaining hidden, and, camouflaged uptill, 2000, thereupon, it cannot be said of the defendants/counter claimants, throughout, since 1969, uptill the year 2000, bringing, apt awakenings, in the mind of the alienor of the plaintiffs, or in the mind of the plaintiffs, qua theirs hence openly, continuously, peacefully, and, with, a, hostile animus, hence, holding possession of the suit khasra numbers, (h) obviously, hence, the vigour, of, the disaffirmative thereon, concurrent verdicts, recorded by both the learned courts below, hence, remain undispelled. 12. The learned counsel appearing, for the appellant has contended with vigour, that, it was grossly, inapt, for, the learned trial Court, to, record disaffirmative findings, upon, an application of the defendants/counter claimants, as, instituted before the learned trial court, application whereof was cast under the provisions, of, Order 6, Rule 17 CPC wherein, leave was sought, to, amend the written statement. The strength, of, the reasoning assigned thereto, would suffer diminution, dehors its standing belatedly instituted, since, the acquisition of apt knowledge thereof, by the defendants/counter claimants, (i) conspicuously when it would rather put to, a, quietus, the nerve center of the controversy engaging the parties, and, also when it would preclude multiplicity of litigation. However, as aforestated, with, Ex. The strength, of, the reasoning assigned thereto, would suffer diminution, dehors its standing belatedly instituted, since, the acquisition of apt knowledge thereof, by the defendants/counter claimants, (i) conspicuously when it would rather put to, a, quietus, the nerve center of the controversy engaging the parties, and, also when it would preclude multiplicity of litigation. However, as aforestated, with, Ex. Dy not therein with precision, hence, making any pronouncement, qua the dimensions, and, locations of the land allotted thereunder, by way of Nautor, vis-a-vis, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, (ii) and, with the requests, comprised in the application, pressed by defendant No.1, before the Revenue Officer concerned, on 10.01.1983, bespeaking qua his being in possession of 0-2-12 bighas, of suit land, and, his since long holding its cultivating possession, (iii) yet with it not making, any, apt communication qua his being owner thereof, and, also when therewith stands not appended, the apt khasra girdawaris, for validating the aforesaid espousals, it, cannot assuredly, in any manner hence bolster, the, defendants/counter-claimants, espousal qua, the initial pleaded factum, of, theirs since 1969, through, their predecessor-in-interest, with, an animus possidendi hence holding possession of the suit kahsra numbers. Rather it belittles the aforesaid espousal besides being antithetical, vis-a-vis, it nor when the allottee, has been able to project qua the allotment made under Ex.Dy, appertaining vis-a-vis the suit khasra numbers also hence, the disaffirmative pronouncement made upon the defendants'' application, cast under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, before the learned trial Court, rather enjoins its validation, whereunder, the defendants prayed for the hereinafter extracted amendments, being permitted to be incorporated, in, the written statement:- "That after para No.2 of the written statement, the following amendment may kindly be allowed to be inserted-that in fact the land over which the defendant has claimed ownership by way of adverse possession which is measuring 0-2-12 bighas is initially a part of land which was sanctioned to the father of defendant NO.1, as Nautor and the entries in the name of Sh. Ramesh Chand, plaintiff and prior to him of Smt. Chinti Devi is a result of connivance of revenue staff and then owner Smt. Chinti Devi, hence the defendant No.1 is owner in possession of this part f land and the plea of adverse possession raised in the counter claim of earlier written statement be treated as alternative plea." 13. Ramesh Chand, plaintiff and prior to him of Smt. Chinti Devi is a result of connivance of revenue staff and then owner Smt. Chinti Devi, hence the defendant No.1 is owner in possession of this part f land and the plea of adverse possession raised in the counter claim of earlier written statement be treated as alternative plea." 13. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, being 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 substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, and, against the appellants/ defendants. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgements 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 forthwith.