JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Both the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of, by a common verdict, since, they arise, from, verdict(s) rendered by the learned First Appellate Court, (i) whereunder, it upheld the verdict rendered by the learned trial Court, whereunder, the latter had declined, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction, (ii) besides the relief of declaration, (iii) and, rather decreed, the defendants' counter claim, for rendition of a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction. Reiteratedly, through RSA No.171 of 2018, and, through RSA No. 172 of 2018, as arise, from, the verdicts pronounced by the learned First Appeal Court, respectively, upon, Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017, and, upon Civil Appeal No.26 of 2017, the plaintiff concerned, hence, a challenge, upon, the afore rendered decrees, as, rendered in affirmation, to the apt verdict, and, decree rendered by the learned trial Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction with respect to land bonre in Khewat No. 74/74, Khatauni No. 108/108, Khasra No.27, measuring 0-19-06 bighas, situated in Muhal Okhali/665, Illaqua Dahar, Sub Tehsil Bali Chowki, District Mandi H.P. The plaintiff's case is that the suit land is coming in his peaceful and physical possession for the last about 42 years. It is averred that the suit land has been wrongly recorded in the names of the defendants. His predecessor-in-interest, namely, Kesru was coming in possession of the suit land, who died about 42 years ago. Thereafter, his father namely Sh. Saran Dass was coming in possession of the suit land. Both of them died. At the time of death of Kesru, he was about 6 years old. |The suit land remained barren for about 8-9 years. He developed the same. His grand father was rustic villager, but his uncles were very clever. They manipulated revenue entries during settlement operation. This fact came to his knowledge in May, 2013, when the defendants claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit land. They were asked to get the revenue entries corrected but in vain. Hence the suit. 3. Defendants No.1 to 7 and 13 contested the suit and filed composite written statement, and counter claim, wherein they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and locus standi. On merits, it is submitted that the revenue entries are correct. They were asked to get the revenue entries corrected but in vain. Hence the suit. 3. Defendants No.1 to 7 and 13 contested the suit and filed composite written statement, and counter claim, wherein they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and locus standi. On merits, it is submitted that the revenue entries are correct. Sh. Kesru was not coming in possession of the suit land. Sh. Kesru had no right over the suit land. The suit land was in actual possession of Gosru and Manghru. Their possession was duly recorded in revenue record. They were conferred proprietary rights of the suit land. It is denied that the plaintiff is in continuous, peaceful and hostile possession. It is alleged that plaintiff since first week of July, 2014 has started threatening to dispossess them from the suit land in an illegal manner. It is therefore prayed that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and counter claim may be decreed. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement(s) of the defendant(s), as well as, written statement to the defendants' counterclaim, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement(s) as well as of counter claim, 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 plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit land since the times immemorial and is entitled to the absolute title of ownership by way of long-long possession, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is further entitled for the decree of declaration to the effect that the defendants have got no right, title and interest over the suit land and the revenue entries existing in the name of defendants are exclusive owner in possession of the suit land are wrong, illegal, null and void and is liable to be corrected in the name of the plaintiff by declaring him to be owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from causing any interference over the suit land through a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as a consequential relief, as prayed for? OPP. 4. OPP. 3. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from causing any interference over the suit land through a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as a consequential relief, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action and right to sue against the defendants, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the present suit is not legally maintainable and competent against the defendants, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus tandi to file the present suit against the defendants, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether defendants/counter claimants are owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPD/CC 8. Whether the defendants/counter claimants are entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as alleged? OPD/CC. 9. Whether the defendants/counter claimants are entitled to decree of possession, as alleged? OPD/CC 10. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not valued for proper court fees and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD 11. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's/appellant's herein suit, whereas, it decreed the defendants' counterclaim. In appeals, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff/appellant herein, the latter Court hence dismissed both the appeals, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, now has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeals, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment(s) and decree(s), by the learned first Appellate Court. 8. Even though, a catena of verdicts pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, renders, the plaintiff defacilitated, to, in the affirmative claim rendition, of, a declaratory decree qua his acquiring title, by prescription, sparked, by elapse, of, the statutorily mandated period of time, and, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number(s), (i) yet, dehors the afore bar, against, the afore plea being raised in the affirmative by the plaintiff, even evidence, adduced qua therewith, is, for the reasons ascribed hereinafter, rather both frail, and, weak. The plaintiff, though pleaded qua his grand father hence holding possession of the suit land, (ii) yet his omitting, to, voice categorically, and, with specificity, the time of commencement, of, possession thereon, by his afore predecessor-in-interest, (iii) rather his proceeding to render a testification qua his afore predecessor-in-interest, rather possessing about 70 years ago, hence government land, and, his also omitting to obviously voice rather with explicity qua his afore predecessor-in-interest, hence, holding possessing, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, (iv) thereupon, the effect thereof, when combined, with, similar therewith testifications, rendered by the plaintiff's witnesses, who, respectively stepped into the witness box, as PW-3, and, as PW-4, (v) is, qua an inference being bolstered qua the trite canon, for the plaintiff may be, succeeding in his endeavour, of his being declared, to, acquire title to the suit land, conspicuously, by prescription, sparked, by efflux, of, the statutorily mandated period of time, (vi) rather when hence enjoined him, to, also render a clear testification qua the precise time, of, commencement of possession thereof, and, the apt possession, existing, and, remaining continuously, and, uninterruptedly hence alive, specifically vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, (vii) whereas, the afore evidence remaining unadduced, thereupon, the afore requisite canon, hence, ingraining the principle, of, acquisition, of, title by adverse possession, remains wholly unsatisfied, (viii) with, a further corollary, that, the declaratory decree, on anvil aforesaid rather being unrenderable, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff. Contrarily, the defendants, for proving theirs assuming title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, hence, depending, upon, a copy of missal hakiyat bandobast jadid, borne in Ex.DW1/B, and, upon an order of mutation borne in EX.DW1/C, (ix) where through, the apt title, vis-avis, suit kahsra number, in substitution, of the prior thereto title, vesting in the State Government, rather stood vested, on 27.05.1006, vis-a-vis, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants. Conspicuously, the afore order borne in the afore exhibits hence acquires firm conclusivity, (x) given it remaining unchallenged, by the plaintiff, and, also obviously no evidence standing adduced qua in its rendition, the officer concerned, recording it, in utter disregard, to, the rules and procedures, as, appertaining therewith. Conspicuously, the afore order borne in the afore exhibits hence acquires firm conclusivity, (x) given it remaining unchallenged, by the plaintiff, and, also obviously no evidence standing adduced qua in its rendition, the officer concerned, recording it, in utter disregard, to, the rules and procedures, as, appertaining therewith. The apt sequel thereof, is, qua with the defendants hence proving qua theirs validly assuming title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (xi) thereupon, the verdict rendered by the learned trial Court, and, affirmed by the learned First appellate Court, qua theirs being entitled, to retain the possession of the suit khasra numbers, and, concomitant therewith, rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, is both tenable and apt. 9. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended, that, the concurrent pronouncement, as, made by both the learned Courts below (i) qua the defendants being entitled for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, being beyond the domain, of, pleadings borne in the counterclaim, as, reared by the defendants, hence, the afore decree being unrenderable. However, the aforesaid contention is illusory, (ii) and, it is reared, on a sheer misreading of the concurrent decrees, pronounced by the learned Courts below, (iii) whereunder, the learned courts below rather held, that, with the defendants acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit land, under valid entries recorded in their favour, and, borne in the revenue record, (iv) hence, on anvil thereof theirs standing entitled to retain possession of the suit land, and, thereupon theirs being entitled for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit kahsra numbers. Consequently, the defendants, cannot, as, untenably construed by the learned counsel, for the plaintiff, be construed qua theirs being not entitled, for, rendition of a decree for retention, of, possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, nor hence it can be argued, that, the afore relief, is beyond the domain, of, pleadings, and, was unaffordable vis-a-vis, the plaintiff. Contrarily, the afore rendered decree qua entitlement of the defendants, to, retain possession of suit khasra numbers, and, the concomitant therewith relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as, pronounced against the plaintiff, and, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, is well founded, upon, the pleadings apposite therewith, as stand, reared in the counterclaim, preferred by the defendants. 10. Contrarily, the afore rendered decree qua entitlement of the defendants, to, retain possession of suit khasra numbers, and, the concomitant therewith relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as, pronounced against the plaintiff, and, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, is well founded, upon, the pleadings apposite therewith, as stand, reared in the counterclaim, preferred by the defendants. 10. 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, no substantial question of law much less a substantial question of law arise for determination in these appeals. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in both the Regular Second Appeals, and, they are 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.