JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Both the learned Courts below under concurrently recorded pronouncement, upon, Civil Suit No. 74 of 2000, hence dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for possession, vis-a-vis., the suit khasra numbers. Being aggrieved, therefrom, the plaintiffs/appellants have instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the defendant No. 1 is the son and defendant No. 2 is daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff deceased Tulsi Ram. Deceased plaintiff Tulsi Ram, after his retirement from the government service started construction of house in the year 1986 on his land comprising Khata/Khatauni No. 19 min/147 min, Khasra No. 1203/1153, measuring 1-6-0 bighas, situated in Muhal Garoru/339, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., The construction of the house on the suit land was completed in the year 1994-95. It has been pleaded that the suit land is self acquired property of the plaintiff, therefore, the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same. The defendants being son and daughter in law of the plaintiff had started residing in the house in question, and, in the month of February, 1999, they denied possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and the house constructed thereon and started asserting their exclusive possession over the suit land and the house thereon. They also started interfering with the remaining vacant suit land in possession of the plaintiff. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff was forced to live in the old house consisting of two rooms situated in abadi deh land of the village. Since, the plaintiff has been deprived of the suit land by the defendants, therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled to recover damages of Rs. 12,000/- from the defendants. The plaintiff sought decree of possession of the house in question situated on the suit land, and, also permanent prohibitory injunction for retraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the remaining vacant portion of the suit land, and, he also claimed a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as rental value of the house in question till final vacation. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections, inter alia, maintainability, estoppel, locus standi cause of action and limitation. 1000/- per month as rental value of the house in question till final vacation. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections, inter alia, maintainability, estoppel, locus standi cause of action and limitation. On merits, it has been submitted that defendant No. 1 is the son of the plaintiff, who has been employed as Surveyor in HPSEB, for the last 18 years. He had been handing over his entire salary to the plaintiff. In the year 1986, the plaintiff persuaded defendant No. 1 to construct separate house in the suit land, and, defendant No. 1, on persuasion of the plaintiff constructed the house on the suit land by spending an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, whereas, remaining vacant land was being used by the defendants as courtyard and kitchen garden since the year 1986. The defendants started residing in the house since the month of January, 1988. It is further asserted that the plaintiff himself persuaded defendant No. 1 to construct house on the suit land and defendant No. 1 has spent huge amount in construction of the house, therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from fling the suit. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery damages of Rs. 12,000/- nor the amount at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month as rental value. The defendants refuted the case of the plaintiff and they sought dismissal of the same. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he 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 plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of residential house, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as regard to vacant land out of suit land? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 12,000/- for illegal use and occupation from February 1999 to January, 2001, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1000/- for use and occupation during the pendency of suit? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit? OPD. 7. OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1000/- for use and occupation during the pendency of suit? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 10. Whether the defendant has spent about 2 lacs for construction of house in the year 1986, if so, its effect? OPD. 11. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, 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 4.03.2008, 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 learned courts below were right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by applying the provisions of Section 60 of the Indian Easement Act? 2. Whether the learned trial Court erred in clubbing issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 which is contrary to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in case titled Prithvi Raj Jhingta Versus Gulab Singh-2006 (1) HLJ 179? 3. Whether the presumption of truth is attached to revenue record P-1 and the absence of rebuttal to the same infers that plaintiff is owner of the suit land and is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? 4. Whether the learned courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the documents exhibited? 5. Whether in absence of the one plea of licensee on behalf of defendant, the learned courts below mis-appreciated the entire controversy and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff? 6. Whether in absence of only pleading of the defendant, the court can assume the jurisdiction and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff? 5. Whether in absence of the one plea of licensee on behalf of defendant, the learned courts below mis-appreciated the entire controversy and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff? 6. Whether in absence of only pleading of the defendant, the court can assume the jurisdiction and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff? Substantial questions of Law No. 1 to 6: 8. Defendant No. 1, Rajinder Singh, is, the son from the previous wife of Tulsi Ram, since deceased now represented, by his legal heirs. The afore deceased Tulsi Ram, stands, substituted by his legal heirs, who under a bequest made in their favour, and, in pursuance to the orders rendered by this Court on 14.11.2008, were hence, arrayed as co-appellants, in, the array of appellants. During his life time, the afore deceased sole appellant one Tulsi Ram, made a bequest, vis-a-vis., his estate, bequest whereof stand embodied in Ex. PW1/A, and, exists on the record of RSA No. 361 of 2012, whereunder, he made an apposite bequest of his estate, upon, Smt. Rukani Devi, Smt. Veena Devi, Sarla Devi, and, Rimbla Devi. The afore bequest, challenged by one Rajinder Singh, defendant/respondent No. 1 in the instant RSA No. 69 of 2008, and, who, is arrayed, as, respondent/plaintiff in RSA No. 361 of 2012, and, hence his challenge thereto, through a Civil Suit No. 249 of 2008, cast before the learned Civil Court concerned, rather succeeded there before, (i) and, in the appeal preferred therefrom, by the aggrieved beneficiaries of the bequest, before the learned First Appellate Court, rather met an alike fate, wherefrom RSA No. 361 of 2012, stands instituted before this Court. Since the succession to the estate of deceased Tulsi Ram, and, the right thereto, of the afore litigating parties, in both RSAs, is hinged, upon, the validity of the concurrent pronouncements made, upon, the valid and due execution of Ex. PW1/A, (ii) thereupon, both the RSAs are inter-dependent. Since the succession to the estate of deceased Tulsi Ram, and, the right thereto, of the afore litigating parties, in both RSAs, is hinged, upon, the validity of the concurrent pronouncements made, upon, the valid and due execution of Ex. PW1/A, (ii) thereupon, both the RSAs are inter-dependent. Since, this Court while pronouncing a verdict, upon, RSA No. 361 of 2012, has proceeded to uphold, the, concurrent affirmative pronouncements made by both the learned Court below, whereby, the bequest aforesaid made, vis-a-vis., his estate by deceased testator one Tulsi Ram, rather stands invalidated, (iii) thereupon, when hence one Rajinder Singh, respondent in both the appeals, hence, acquires in the estate of the deceased testator Tulsi Ram, a proportionate share alongwith, his other legal heirs, (iv) thereupon, the suit for possession instituted during his life time by deceased Tulsi Ram, may, upon, the afore anvil besides for other reasons assigned hereinafter, hence, suffer the ill-fate of dismissal. 9. Be that as it may, both the learned courts below had aptly made a conclusion anvilled, upon, communications, borne in Ex. DW7/A to Ex. DW7/E, made by deceased Tulsi Ram, vis-a-vis., the afore Rajinder Singh, with clear voicings therein qua his persuading Rajinder Singh to avail leave for raising construction, upon, the suit khasra numbers. The afore voicings occurring, in the afore exhibits are corroborated by DW-6 and DW-8, both of whom are real brothers of deceased plaintiff Tulsi Ram. Since, hence evidence emerges qua the entire expenses, for raising construction, upon, the suit khasra numbers being made by, the, afore Rajinder Singh, (i) and, thereupon, when even during the life time of Tulsi Ram, it is visibly clear qua the latter hence impliedly permitting defendant Rajinder Singh, to, raise construction, upon, suit khasra numbers, (ii) thereupon, his oral implied permission, vis-a-vis., Rajinder Singh to raise construction, upon, suit khasra numbers, is construable qua his granting an irrevocable licence for the relevant purpose, to, afore Rajinder Singh. 10. Be that as it may, the entries in the jamabandi, borne in Ex. 10. Be that as it may, the entries in the jamabandi, borne in Ex. P-1, reveal, that Tulsi Ram being recorded to be owner-in-possession of the suit khasra number, yet the afore entries are extantly not relevant, (a) given this Court, while making a decision, upon, RSA No. 361 of 2012, hence, validating the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereunder, they invalidated, the, bequest made by deceased testator Tulsi Ram, vis-a-vis., the appellants therein, (b) hence, begetting the concomitant casualty, of, the revenue entries, if any, occurring in the revenue records, vis-a-vis., the beneficiaries of the apposite Will, being also obviously ordered, to be, quashed and set aside. 11. Paramountly, hence, when, the, construction raised upon the suit khasra numbers, is, with the open consent of deceased Tulsi Ram, and, when after his demise Rajinder Singh, hence, acquires along with his other heirs, a right in the suit property, in proportion to his share therein, (i) given this Court while making a decision upon RSA No. 361 of 2012, while upholding, the, concurrent findings, whereunder, Rajinder Singh's challenge, vis-a-vis., the bequest of the deceased testator rather hence succeeded. A vigorous dependence, is, made by the learned counsel for the appellants, upon, the deposition existing in the examination-in-chief of PW-1, wherein, he acquiesced qua Rajinder Singh, raising construction, only, upon 2-3 biswas, of, the suit khasra number, suit khasra number whereof, rather hold a total measurement of 1 bigha 6 biswas, (ii) AND thereupon, an argument, is, erected, qua the plaintiff's suit being amenable for being decreed, in an area, other than 2-3 biswas, whereon, one Rajinder Singh, raised construction of a house, (iii) yet the afore submission rather falters, as, a perusal of the relief clause of the plaint makes a disclosure qua deceased plaintiff, during, his life time, claiming relief of possession, only, of the house, and, his rather omitting to claim the relief for restoration, of possession of the land, if any, beyond the land occurring underneath the house, possession whereof, is, held by Rajinder Singh, (iv) and, with this Court while making a decision upon RSA No. 361 of 2012, rather accepting the challenge made to the Will of Tulsi Ram, by Rajinder Singh, and, hence, when Rajinder Singh would along with other beneficiaries of the apt invalidated bequest, hold a share, along with them in the suit khasra numbers, and when the extant suit for possession, may hence be amenable for dismissal, given the possession of defendant Rajinder Singh, upon, the suit khasra number being within his share, thereupon, also renders the afore submission to rather fail. 12. 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. 13. 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. Records be sent back forthwith.