JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant Regular Second Appeal, stands directed, by the appellants herein, who preferred Civil Appeal No.144-D/2004/2000, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, appeal whereof was dismissed, whereas, the connected therewith appeal, bearing Civil Appeal No. 194-D/04/2000, filed by one Partap Chand, who stands arrayed, as, respondent No.7, in the instant appeal, was partly allowed, and, he was declared to be one of the co-owners, in, joint possession, of the suit land, to the extent of his holding, a, valid share therein. The appellants herein, are, aggrieved by the verdict recorded upon Civil Appeal No. 144-D/2004/2000, hence, through the instant appeal, concert to beget its reversal. 2. Apparently, he has not cast any challenge, visa-vis, the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 194-D/2004/2000, filed by one Pratap Chand, appeal whereof, was partly allowed, to the aforestated extent. Nonetheless, with both the aforesaid appeals, standing, decided under a common verdict, hence, with findings common to both appeals, standing, rendered by the learned First Appellate Court, thereupon, dehors the appellants herein not casting any challenge vis-a-vis the findings recorded upon Civil Appeal No. 194-D/2004/2000, this Court yet proceeds, to also determine the validity(ies) thereof. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the the suit land as detailed in the plaint was owned and possessed to the extent of 3/20th and 3/80th share by one Bisakhi. This Bisakhi, who is predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 6. This land was mortgaged by Bisakhi with Moti Singh, the successor in interest of the plaintiffs and the mortgage for the consideration Rs. 50/- was registered on 29.03.1935 and in that respect mutation No.332 was registered. The mortgage was never redeemed. However, Moti Singh, mortgagee died on 18.2.1954 and he was suceeded by Budhi Singh and Parmodh Singh, who are predecessor-ininterest of the plaitiffs. It has been claimed that since the mortgage has not been redeemed, the plaintiffs had become owners in possession and the defendants have got no right, or title to interfere over the suit land and they be restrained from causing any type of interference upon the suit land. It has been claimed that since the mortgage has not been redeemed, the plaintiffs had become owners in possession and the defendants have got no right, or title to interfere over the suit land and they be restrained from causing any type of interference upon the suit land. At the same time declaration has been sought that entries in the revenue record of rights recording the plaintiffs to be mortgagees and the defendants to be mortgagors be deleted and the plaintiffs be recorded to be owners-in-possession thereof. 4. The defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendants No. 2 to 6, in their jointly filed written statement, have take preliminary objections qua cause of action, estoppel, maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation etc. It has been averred that the suit land is not under mortgage and the entries in the records of rights are wrong. The status of plaintiffs as mortgagees or the ownership has been disputed. It has also been averred that the possession of the suit land is with the defendants. It has been averred that no mortgage of the suit land was effected by Bisakhi nor possession was ever delivered. Thus, the mutation attested in favour of Moti Singh is wrong and contrary tot he factual position. The consolidation operation is stated to have taken place in 1959-60. It has also been averred that even if the mortgage is found to have been effected, the plaintiffs cannot claim themselves to be owners as the limitation for claiming ownership by efflux of time has expired. 5. Defendant No.9 in his written statement raised similar preliminary objections as raised by defendants No.2 to 6 and the averments made by defendant No.9 in its written statement on merits are also the same as averred by defendants No.2 to 6 in their written statement. 6. Defendant No.7, Partap Chand has filed separate written statement and has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action limitation etc. ON merits, it has been averred that the mortgagors and mortgagees were joint owners in possession of the suit land. No separate or exclusive possession had been handed over to the mortgagees and the parties continued in possession of their shares as per the arrangements earlier to the mortgage. ON merits, it has been averred that the mortgagors and mortgagees were joint owners in possession of the suit land. No separate or exclusive possession had been handed over to the mortgagees and the parties continued in possession of their shares as per the arrangements earlier to the mortgage. Defendant No.7 had purchase the suit land being a bonafide purchaser for finding that the revenue entries disclosing the parties to be joint owners and the hare which was purchased by him was in exclusive possession of vendor one of the plaintiffs. Thereby he had become owner in possession of the land purchased by him, which has been so describe din the sale deed comprising Khata No.18, Khatauni Nos. 37 to 41, Khasra No.s 9, 23, 62/1, 62/1, 64, 68, 79, 8, 26, 58, 59, 60, 15, 16, 62, 65, 66, 10, 22, 27 and 5, Kita 21, area 0-65-96 hectares, to the extent of 1/6 shares which comes out to be 0-10-99 hectares. It had been prayed that the suit in that respect of this part of land be dismissed. 7. The plaintiff filed replication(s) to the written statement(s) of the defendant(s), wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement(s) and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs alongwith proforma defendants 14 to 22 are owners in possession of land measuring 3 Kanals, 6 Marlas entered in Khata NO.18 min, Khatauni No.38, Khasra No.8, 26, 58, 59, measuring 0-15-44 hectares at Gharoh?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs along with proforma defendants 14 to 33 were mortgagees of land measuring 1 Kanal 16 marlas entered in Khata No.17, Khatauni Nos. 33 to 36, Khasra Nos. 31, 32, 1, 3, 4, 6, 2, measuring 2-21-13 hectares, at Gharoh, as alleged?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have become absolute owners of the suit land by afflux of time and the revenue record showing the defendants as mortgagees are liable to be corrected, as alleged?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction and in alternative for possession of land mentioned above, as alleged?OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to sue against the replying defendant?OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction and in alternative for possession of land mentioned above, as alleged?OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to sue against the replying defendant?OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties?OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD. 10. Whether the plaintiffs along with proforma defendants are not in possession of the suit land, as mortgagees?OPD-7 11. Whether the defendant is in possession of land which he purchased?OPD-7 11-A. Whether the suit is time barred, as alleged?OPD-2 12. Relief. 9. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In appeals, preferred therefrom, by, the defendants/appellants herein, as also, by one Pratap Chand, respondent No.6 herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal preferred by the appellants herein, whereas, it allowed the appeal, preferred therebefore, by one Pratap Chand, respondent No.6 herein, and, modified the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court. 10. 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 8.5.2007, 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 learned courts below were right in holding that respondent No.6/defendant NO.7int he trial Court was bonafide purchaser of 1/6th share of the land in dispute? 2. Whether the findings of the learned courts below can be sustained in holding that the respondents have become absolute owners of the suit land by efflux of time when the evidence on record is to the contrary? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 11. 2. Whether the findings of the learned courts below can be sustained in holding that the respondents have become absolute owners of the suit land by efflux of time when the evidence on record is to the contrary? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 11. Before this Court, had proceeded to hear the contentions, reared by the counsel for the appellants, the counsel for the respondents, had made a vehement espousal before this Court, espousal whereof is founded upon the mandate, occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the CPC, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter: "100. Second appeal.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law." (I) pointedly, vis-a-vis, the trite mandate, standing embodied therein, qua the imperative necessity, of, a second appeal, being validly preferable before this Court, (ii) only, when it is directed, against, the apt decree rendered by the First Appellate Court, thereupon, the appending, with, the memorandum of Appeal, the apt decree is contended, to be an utmost statutory necessary. He hence, contends, that the aforesaid peremptory necessity, stands infringed, given the judgment and decree appealed against before this Court, by the appellants herein, remaining unaccompanied, by a decree sheet prepared, in Civil Appeal No.194-D/04/2000, as instituted, by one Pratap Chand, before the learned First Appellate Court, (a) and, thereupon, he contends that with hence, the, finding recorded thereon, though, occurring under a common verdict pronounced thereon, along with a verdict pronounced, upon, Civil Appeal No. 144-D/2004/2000,it yet being misconstituted, rather findings recorded thereunder hence acquire conclusivity. However, the aforesaid contention reared by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, is, made by him, his remaining unaware, of the fact that the decree sheet prepared in Civil Appeal No.194-D/2004/2000, standing appended, at page 26 of the paper book, with the instant appeal, (b) decree sheet whereof make a clear echoing, qua, the aforesaid decree sheet, appertaining to Civil Appeal No.194-D/2004/2000, as, instituted by Pratap Chand, and, the apt portion thereof, contains the operative part, of the common verdict pronounced, upon, the aforesaid both first appeals, and, reiteratedly the operative part, of, the apt verdict, also bears absolute concurrence, with, the decree sheet occurring, at, page 26 of the paper book. Consequently, with the appellants hence appending with the instant appeal, the apposite decree sheet, and, also when both the civil appeals, stood, decided under a common verdict, (c) thereupon even when the instant second appeal, constitutes an onslaught, vis-a-vis, the mandate, of, validity of findings recorded upon Civil Appeal No. 144-D/2004/2000, and, its not constituting any onslaught, vis-a-vis, the validities, of findings recorded upon Civil Appeal No. 194- D/20004/2000, (d) yet, reiteratedly with both, standing, decided under a common verdict, does facilitate, this Court to test the validities, of findings rendered, even upon, Civil Appeal No. 194-D/2004/2000, reemphasisingly, with the findings rendered, upon, both the civil appeal(s) aforesaid, being common to each. 12. One Pratap Chand, arrayed as respondent No.6 herein, in the instant appeal, had purchased 0-10-99 hectares of the suit land, from one Hira Singh, through, a registered deed of conveyance executed on 15.11.1991, and, in, consequence thereto, an apposite mutation was attested, and, thereafter, he came to hold possession of the land purchased by him, under, the aforesaid registered deed of conveyance, executed inter se him, and, one Hira Singh. Uncontroertedly, Hira Singh was one of the co-owners, of, the suit land and had a valid alienable title, to execute, a, sale deed, with, one Pratap Chand. 13. Be that as it may, before proceeding to further guage, hence (a) the imperative factum qua the apt unimpeachable alienable title hence vesting in Hira Singh, for, his rather being befittingly empowered, to, execute a registered deed of conveyance, with, one Pratap Chand, (b) the factum of one Bishakhi in the year 1935, mortgaging the suit land with one Moti Singh, for, a mortgage sum of Rs. 50/-, and, in consequence thereof mutation No. 332, stood attested, and, in sequel whereof, the mortgagee, one Moti Sigh, remained in possession of the suit land, does also require an imperative allusion thereto. The necessity of making allusions thereto,(b) is, sparked by the factum, of the successors-in-interest, of the mortgagor, filing a suit, for redemption, whereon, a, conditional preliminary decree, stood rendered on 12.05.1976, (c) whereunder the mortgagors, were declared entitled to redeem the suit land, on payment of mortgage money, by the mortgagors to the mortgagees, (d) and, it was also embodied therein qua the amount of mortgage money, being, deposited on or before 11.06.1976, and, on failure whereof, the successors-in- interest, of, one Bishakhi, the initial mortgagor, being barred to claim redemption of the suit land. Even though, the aforesaid conditional preliminary decree, rendered, for redemption of the suit property, was recorded, on 12.05.1976, yet no evidence exists, on record qua the imperative compliances, vis-a-vis, the apt condition(s) precedent, being meted by the decree holders/successors-in-interest, of one Bishakhi. The effect thereof, is, qua the suit land being construed to be still under mortgage, and thereupon, the execution of sale deed on 15.11.1991 by one Hira Singh, one amongst the successors-in-interest, of the initial mortgagee, is concomitantly, construable to be not ingrained with any shroud of suspicion, nor it can be concluded qua Hira Singh, not, holding any impeachable unalienable title in the land, in respect whereof, he executed, the apt registered deed of conveyance vis-a-vis one Pratap Chand, respondent No.6 herein, nor it can be concluded, that, hence one Pratap Chand, not acquiring, rights as a co-owner, vis-a-vis, the suit land. 14. Furthermore, the apt corollary thereof, is, of creations, of, mortgage vis-a-vis the suit land, in the year 1935, and, also the attestation, of, mutation No.332, in, consonance therewith, both being cogently established. Moreover, the further apt corollary thereof, is of the suit land remaining yet unredeemed, and, hence it still being under mortgage. 14. Furthermore, the apt corollary thereof, is, of creations, of, mortgage vis-a-vis the suit land, in the year 1935, and, also the attestation, of, mutation No.332, in, consonance therewith, both being cogently established. Moreover, the further apt corollary thereof, is of the suit land remaining yet unredeemed, and, hence it still being under mortgage. Since, the relevant revenue record makes, a clear portrayal qua the apt mortgagees, holding possession of the suit land, and, also makes clear portrayals, of one Pratap Chand, in sequel, to his acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit land, from, one Hira Singh, under, a registered deed of conveyance, executed inter se him, and, the latter in the year 1991, (a) his hence holding possession of the part of the suit land, besides with no cogent evidence standing adduced, with clear displays therein, of the undivided suit property, being validly dismembered, (b) thereupon, till occurrence, of, valid dismemberments thereof, all the recorded joint co-owners therein, hence hold community of possession, and, unity of title, vis-a-vis, every inch, of, the suit property, (c) thereupon, the declaration meted, vis-a-vis, respondent No.6 one Pratap Chand, qua his being joint owner in possession of the suit land, along with other co-owners therein, apparently does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity. 15. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being 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. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents, and, against the appellants. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgement and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 194-D/2004/2000 and Civil Appeal No. 144-D/2004/2000 is 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.