JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiffs, are, aggrieved by concurrently recorded verdicts, by, both the learned Courts below, where under, the plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was dismissed, rather the defendants'/counter-claimants', counterclaim was decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit against the respondents for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction vis-a-vis, the land comprised in Khata No.44/46 red, Khatauni No. 78, Khasra No. 256/1, measuring 0-23-50 hects, situated at Mohal Lajot, Mauza Basnoor, Teh. Sahpur, District Kangra H.P., and, if in the alternative, the defendants succeed to get possession of the same int hat event for possession. The plaintiffs alleged that they are in peaceful possession of the suit land as exclusive owners thereof. The suit land is alleged to be allotted to Shri Parma Ram in the year 1972 as Patta by the State Government. Shri Parma Ram died issueless and he bequeathed the suit land to the plaintiffs, and, so the plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest in the estate of late Shri Parma Ram, on the basis of Will. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are also allottee of the land comprised in Khasra NO. 254/1, adjoining to the suit land and in order to grab the above mentioned suit land, they are attempting to forcibly occupy a portion of the suit land, as the defendants are proclaiming in open to forcibly occupy the suit land by all means. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections in ter alia, maintainability, cause of action, locus standi etc. On merits, sit is submitted that the land was originally allotted to Parma Ram and not to the plaintiffs, who grabbed the same by divesting original owner in possession of the suit land, and, he made the land cultivable, but, as the plaintiffs had bad eyes on the same and after the demise of the original allottee, they grabed the land. It is submitted that Khasra No.254/1 is allotted to the defendants. The plaintiffs being greedy persons, in order to grab the land of the defendants allotted in Khasra No.254/1, has filed the instant suit. It is submitted that Khasra No.254/1 is allotted to the defendants. The plaintiffs being greedy persons, in order to grab the land of the defendants allotted in Khasra No.254/1, has filed the instant suit. It is their case that the land was demarcated, but the plaintiffs uprooted the fence as fixed by the revenue department in presence of the respectable persons. The defendants also filed the counterclaim to the extent that the defendants are owners in possession of Khasra No.254/1 and the plaintiffs be restrained from interfering in Khasra No.254/1. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, as well as written statement to the counterclaim, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement, and, re-affirmed, and, re-asserted 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 plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction or in the alternative for the possession against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is misconceived and prematured? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is malafide? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 9. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the latter Court, hence, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, whereas, it decreed the defendants' counterclaim. In an appeal, preferred there from by the plaintiffs/appellants 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 plaintiffs/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 04.03.2005, 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. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 04.03.2005, 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 two courts below are justified in granting the decree of permanent injunction in favour of the defendants/respondents by allowing their counter claim when no issue was framed and no evidence was led qua the said counter claim? 2. Whether the two courts below were justified in holding the plaintiffs/appellants in possession of excess area and also restraining them from interfering in the same area? Substantial question of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved plaintiffs has contended with much vigour before this Court, (i) qua both the learned courts below committing a grave misdemeanor in decreeing, the defendants'/counter-claimants' counterclaim, despite, no issue in consonance therewith being framed, (ii) whereas, the framing of an apt issue in consonance therewith, was vital, for, validating the impugned verdicts, hence decreeing the counterclaim, (iii) and, thereafter he contends that the afore omission, vitiates the trial of the suit, and, begets, the, concomitant effect, vis-a-vis, the verdicts challenged before this Court, also hence acquiring an akin taint. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved plaintiffs, would stand validated by this Court, upon, (a) the material on record making, a, display, with utmost candour qua the aggrieved plaintiffs, throughout, the trial of the suit hence being forbidden to participate therein, nor theirs adducing any evidence, in, rebuttal, vis-a-vis, the defendants' counterclaim, (b) whereupon, it may be inferable that the non striking, of, the afore issue, hence, prejudicing the plaintiffs, where after, it may also be concludable, qua hence, the trial of the suit being vitiated, and, concomitantly the impugned verdicts hence warranting theirs being quashed, and, set aside, and, the lis being directed, to, for the apt purpose, hence, remanded, vis-a-vis, the learned Court. 9. For making the apt fathomings, vis-a-vis, the afore facets, the apt crucial evidence, is, comprised in the report of the demarcating officer, borne in Ex.PW4/A, wherewith, tatima borne in Ex.PW4/B, stood appended, with, unfoldments occurring therein, qua encroachments being made by the plaintiff, upon, the defendants/counter-claimants' land, as, adjoins thereto. 9. For making the apt fathomings, vis-a-vis, the afore facets, the apt crucial evidence, is, comprised in the report of the demarcating officer, borne in Ex.PW4/A, wherewith, tatima borne in Ex.PW4/B, stood appended, with, unfoldments occurring therein, qua encroachments being made by the plaintiff, upon, the defendants/counter-claimants' land, as, adjoins thereto. Ex.DW4/A, and, the tatima appended therewith, borne in Ex.DW4/B, would, suffer invalidation, upon, DW-4, while being subjected, to, an ordeal, of, a scathing cross-examination by the learned counsel, for the plaintiffs, his making acquiescence’s, vis-a-vis, (a) at the relevant time his not carrying the apt musabi, (b) and, his not adhering to the apt canons prescribed, for his conducting, the, demarcation of the adjoining estates, of the contesting litigants. However, a reading of the cross-examination of DW-4, displays, qua thereat, the counsel for the plaintiff, rather meteing suggestion(s) to him (i) qua prior to his holding demarcation, his making an intimation, to, the contesting litigants; (ii) qua before his proceeding to carry measurements, his enabling the contesting litigants, to verify the 'jareb'; (c) none of the contesting litigants rearing before him any objections, vis-a-vis, pacca points, as, determined by him, for, his there from, hence carrying demarcation, of, the adjoining estates, of, the contesting litigants. All the aforesaid affirmative, suggestions, hence, stood answered in the affirmative by DW-4. The effect thereof, being (d) qua the counsel for the plaintiff, while, holding DW-4 for cross-examination, obviously failing to make appropriate unearthings from him, vis-a-vis, non adherence by the aforesaid witness, vis-a-vis, the apt prescribed canons, in, his conducting the demarcation of the adjoining estates, of, the contesting litigants, (e) and further effect thereof, is, qua both Ex.PW4/A, and, Ex.PW4/B, hence acquiring an aura of validity, and, solemnity, (f) rendering hence unnecessary for the learned courts below, to, pronounce any decision upon the objections, if any, reared there before, by the contesting litigants, vis-a-vis, the demarcation report, borne in Ex.DW4/A. 10. Furthermore, given the afore effects, emanating from, the afore acquiescences, being meted by DW-4, to the afore suggestions, meted to him, by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, while holding him to cross-examination, (i) also rather enables this Court to mobilise, an inference, that the plaintiffs were not taken by surprise, vis-a-vis, the adversarial findings, borne in Ex.DW4/A, and, in the appended therewith tatima, as, borne in Ex.DW4/B, (ii) nor hence when he made the aforesaid omissions, in, his hence beffitingly striving to tear apart, the sanctity of Ex.DW4/A, and, of, Ex.DW4/B, thereupon, there was no imperative necessity cast, upon, the learned trial Court to strike any issue in consonance, with, the defendants' counterclaim, (iii) emphatically when hence he had rather for all afore reasons hence acquiesced, vis-a-vis, the defendants/counter-claimants' propagation, nor hence, it can be concluded that the plaintiffs were taken, by surprise or theirs being prejudiced, nor the non striking, of, any issue qua therewith, hence, vitiates the impugned verdicts. 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 defendants/respondents, 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 judgments, 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.