JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a declaratory decree, and, also for rendition of a decree for injunction, was dismissed by the learned trial Court, and, in an appeal preferred by the aggrieved therefrom, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court also pronounced a verdict bearing consonance, with, the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff/appellant herein being aggrieved therefrom, hence, strives to beget reversal, of, the apt concurrent verdicts, as, recorded by both the learned Courts below. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the the suit land is recorded in the ownership of the parties but in possession of the plaintiffs, which entry is wrong, incorrect, null, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. During the settlement operation, there were two khataunies which were in possession of Hirda, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff as Gair Maurusi and Dingu, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants as Gair Maurusi, i.e. Khata No./Khatauni No. 11min/48, Khasra Nos. 4,6,8,9, 10, 7, 11,17,18, 19, 20, 28, 30,31, 33/1, 36, 37 and 39, Kitas 18 measuring 38-2-18 bighas and Khata/Khatauni No. 11 min/50, Khasra Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 32, 32/1, 33, 34, 38 and 79, kitas 10, measuring 19-7-11 bighas, situated in Mohal Ropari/145, Illaqua Bagra, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., and, their possession was separate prior to the settlement operation and they were tenant and non tenant under Sh. Lachhmi Chand alias Bhuru etc. The Land comprising Khata/Khatauni No.11 min/48, Kitas 18, measuring 38-2- 18 bighas was under the exclusive possession of Hirda as occupancy tenants and the land comprising Khata/Khatauni No.11 min/50, Kitas 10, measuring 19- 7/11 bighas was in possession of Dingu as non occupancy tenant and out of the land comprising Khata/Khatauni No.11 min/48, Kitas 18 measuring 38-2-18 bighas, Khasra Nos. The Land comprising Khata/Khatauni No.11 min/48, Kitas 18, measuring 38-2- 18 bighas was under the exclusive possession of Hirda as occupancy tenants and the land comprising Khata/Khatauni No.11 min/50, Kitas 10, measuring 19- 7/11 bighas was in possession of Dingu as non occupancy tenant and out of the land comprising Khata/Khatauni No.11 min/48, Kitas 18 measuring 38-2-18 bighas, Khasra Nos. 604/4/1, 605/4/2 and 607/6/1 measuring 0-15-4 bighas has been acquired by the State of H.P. The Compensation Officer, Mandi, H.P., on 20.10.1970, issued form L.R.-VIII regarding confirmation of proprietary rights in the name of Hirda and Dingu in equal shares which form has been wrongly and illegally issued by the Compensation officer as Hirda, the predecessor of the plaintiffs was tenant of Khatauni No. 54 and Dingu, predecessor of the defendants was tenant of Khatauni NO.55 and Assistant Collector Second Grade, Mandi, has also confirmed the proprietary rights upon Hirda and Dingu as per Form L.R.VIII, wrongly and illegally. Hirda, predecessor of the plaintiff was an illiterate and simpleton villager and the plaintiff is also illiterate and they were unaware about the issuance of form L.R. -VIII and also regarding attestation of mutation and they came to know about the same during consolidation operation. Hirda had died and after his death, the plaintiffs being his legal heirs have inherited his estate including the suit land which is now exclusively owned and possession by the plaintiffs and the revenue entries in the revenue record in favour of the defendants or their predecessors are wrong, illegal, null and void as the defendants and their predecessor Dingu never remained in possession of the suit land in any capacity at any point of time. IN case, it is found that the defendants are also co-sharers in the suit land then in the alternative the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession as they are in peaceful, continuous, open, hostile and uninterrupted possession over the suit land since 20-10-1970 to the knowledge of the defendants and there is a complete ouster of the defendants qua their shares in the suit land. The defendants under the garb of wrong revenue entries are causing unlawful interference over the suit land. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, limitation and jurisdiction. The defendants under the garb of wrong revenue entries are causing unlawful interference over the suit land. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, limitation and jurisdiction. On merits, it is denied that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit land but stated that the parties are co-sharers in the suit land. It is also denied that Hirda, predecessor of the plaintiffs was tenant in possession of land comprising Khata/Khatauni No. 11 min/48 whereas Dingu, predecessor of the defendants was tenant in possession of the land comprising Khaa/Khatauni No.11 min/50. It has been stated that earlier Hirda and Dingu were co-sharers in the suit land as the proprietary rights were conferred by the Compensation officer upon them vide order dated 20.10.1970 and Hirda has not challenged the said order of Compensation Officer which has become final and now the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to challenge the said order after the expiry of period of limitation. It has been further stated that earlier parties to the suit were cosharers in the suit land and the suit land was partitioned by the Consolidation Authorities and even at that time the plaintiffs did not raise any objection and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to prevent the defendants from getting possession f the suit land under order of partition. It is denied that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession and the revenue entries in the revenue record are stated to be correct. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest :- 1. Whether the suit land was earlier owned and possessed exclusively by Hirda, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and after his death, the plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the entries of the suit land in favour of defendants qua ownership and possession are wrong, void and contrary to the factual position, as alleged, if so its effect? OPP 3. OPP. 2. Whether the entries of the suit land in favour of defendants qua ownership and possession are wrong, void and contrary to the factual position, as alleged, if so its effect? OPP 3. Whether the confirmation of proprietary rights in favour of the defendants qua half share is wrong, illegal and null and void, as alleged? OPP. 4. If issue No.3 is not proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of this half share by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit?OPD. 8. Whether the act and conduct of the plaintiffs are part of the suit, as alleged?OPD. 9. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as alleged?OPD. 10. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as alleged?OPD. 11. Whether the suit land was earlier owned and possessed by Hirda and Dingu to the extent of ½ share each and is now owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and defendants to the extent of half share each after the death of their predecessors-in-interest Hirda and Dingu?OPD. 12. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiffs/appellant herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein she assails 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 02.07.2008, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the Ld. Courts below have mis read and misconstrued the copies of Jamabandis, Misal Haqiat and form LR-VIII? Substantial question of Law No.1 : 8. Ex. Whether the Ld. Courts below have mis read and misconstrued the copies of Jamabandis, Misal Haqiat and form LR-VIII? Substantial question of Law No.1 : 8. Ex. PA, exhibit whereof is a copy, of, the jamabandi for the year 1985-86, and, appertains to the suit land, carries reflections, of, the parties at contest, being recorded as co-owners of the suit land. Apparently, a presumption of truth, is, attached, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid reflections, borne in Ex.PA, yet, the plaintiff makes strivings qua the presumption of truth attached thereto, rather being rebutted. However, apt rebuttal evidence for hence eroding the presumption of truth carried by the aforesaid reflections, carried in Ex.PA, is comprised in the solitary deposition of the plaintiff(s), and, obviously hence no cogent befitting documentary evidence stands adduced, for, rather eroding the presumption of truth carried by the afore referred reflections, borne in Ex.PA. Consequently, for want of potent rebuttal evidence, being adduced, by the plaintiff(s), for, hence eroding the presumption of truth ascribable, vis-a-vis, the apt reflections borne in Ex.PA, thereupon, all reflections borne therein, do inevitably carry an aura of conclusivity. 9. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs derive their interest in the suit land, from their, predecessor-in-interest one Hirda, and, the defendants derive their interest in the suit land, through, their predecessor-in-interest, one Dingu. During the life time(s) of the aforesaid, mutation, borne in Ex.PE was attested, whereunder, apt conferment of proprietary rights, stood made, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid Hirda and Dingu. A perusal of the relevant records also makes vivid disclosure qua the attestation of the apt mutation, borne in Ex.PE, bearing absolute concurrence, with, the order made by the Compensation Officer, on, 20.08.1970, (a) besides the afore rendered order made by the Compensation Officer, is evidently succeeded, by his issuing an apt statutory form LR-VIII, vis-a-vis, both Hirda and Dingu, who, respectively are the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, and, of the defendants. The plaintiff(s) contends, that, the aforesaid rendered order, is, wanting in validity, given prior thereto, no, summons being issued upon one Hirda, the apt predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, nor, obviously his recording, his participation, in proceedings drawn, at the time contemporaneous to the recording of Ex.PE, (a) thereupon, the order of mutation, borne in Ex.PE being rendered in violation, of, the trite canons of audi alteram partem, rendering, it hence to acquire no validity. However, the afore addressed espousal by the aggrieved plaintiff, does not carry, any vigour, given no evidence in support thereof being adduced, (b) rather with one Hirda, the predecessor-in-interest, of the plaintiff, failing to during his life time, hence, challenge, on the aforesaid anvil, the making of the orders, borne in Ex.PE, also nowat estops, the, aggrieved to make any challenge thereto. 10. Be that as it may, the trite onslaught, cast, visa- vis, the apt reflections carried in Ex.PA, not, carrying any validity, given Ex.PE, wanting, for all afore referred reasons, in hence, its, acquiring validity, also rather gets reinforcingly enfeebled, (i) given the plaintiff, during, the course of hers being subjected to an exacting cross-examination by the counsel for the defendant, hers rather acquiescing to a suggestion, qua prior to hers acquiring, any, apt interest thereon, one Hirda, her predecessor-in-interest and one Dingu, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, during, their respective life times, being joint tenants, vis-a-vis the suit kahsra numbers, under one Laxmi, the apt landowner. The afore referred acquiescence made by PW-1, during, the course of hers being held to cross-examination, by the counsel for the defendant, also, with one Laxmi or his successors-in-interest, remaining unexamined, for securing a firm conclusion, qua the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, one Dingu, not along with Hirda, the predecessor-in-interest, of the plaintiff, holding the status of a gair maurusie, vis-a-vis, the suit land, whereas, theirs rendering affirmative depositions, vis-avis the plaintiff, rather constituted the apt therewith best evidence. In aftermath, the effects, of, non adduction of the aforesaid best evidence, besides the effects, of, the afore referred acquiescence made by the plaintiffs' witness, (ii) is, qua rather a firm conclusion being hence engendered, qua the attestation of mutation, borne in Ex.PE, whereunder proprietary rights were conferred, respectively, upon one Hirda, and, one Dingu, hence, holding an aura of validity, (iii) and, when the reflections borne in Ex.PA are made in consonance therewith, thereupon, the conclusion(s) concurrently drawn by both the learned Courts below qua the plaintiffs' suit warranting dismissal, hence, not warranting any interference by this Court. 11. 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. 11. 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/defendants and, against the appellants/plaintiffs. 12. 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.