JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiffs' suit for possession qua the suit premises, was, hence decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff set out a case that she is owner of the property comprised in Khata No.75 min, Khatauni No.286, Khasra No. 14, 15, and 16, measuring 1.59 sq. meter, situated at Mauza Bhagwati Nagar, Teh. and District Shimla, H.P. According to the plaintiff, the suit land/suit property was previously owned by Sh. Durga Ram s/o Sh. Ghavlia, who inherited it from Sh. Shonkia Ram. It was purchased by the plaintiff from Durga Ram under a sale deed No.1023 of 21.07.2008. Defendant No.1 Smt. Kamla Devi had previously filed a civil suit against Durga Ram claimant the suit property on the basis of a “Will” purportedly executed by Sh. Shonkia Ram. The suit was dismissed by the ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Court no.4, Shimla, on 30.05.2008. As per the plaintiff, even the appeal preferred by defendant No.1 was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 31.05.2011. The plaintiff avers that the land comprised in the afore kahsra No. consists of two parts of construction. On part, consists of a “Katcha Makaan” and the second part consists of “pucca Makan”. The defendant was kept as a care-taker by Sh. Shonkia Ram in one room and no “Will” was executed by him in her favour. The plaintiff further contends that as of now there are five rooms including a kitchen in the suit property. It is further contended that one room was constructed by defendant before filing the previous suit. Thus, there were three rooms in existence when the previous suit was filed by defendant No.1. Two rooms were constructed by Sh. Shonkia Ram and one room was unauthorisedly constructed by the defendant. It is averred that the defendants, taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff is living out of Shimla for her job, constructed a two room structure behind the back of the plaintiff. The defendants have absolutely no right whatsoever to remain in possession of the suit property, and, they are liable to be evicted. The plaintiff further contends that the suit property which is in possession of the defendants, can easily fetch a rent more than Rs.3,000/- per month. The defendants have absolutely no right whatsoever to remain in possession of the suit property, and, they are liable to be evicted. The plaintiff further contends that the suit property which is in possession of the defendants, can easily fetch a rent more than Rs.3,000/- per month. The plaintiff claims that the defendants are liable to pay Rs.3,000/- per month from November, 2008 as use and occupation charges. The plaintiff also contends that the defendants are in habit of raising construction and taking advantage of her absence and therefore, they are liable to be restrained from raising any construction on the suit land. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia limitation, adverse possession, non joinder of necessary parties and estoppel. On merits, the defendants have denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It is contendd that Durga Ram was not entitled to inherit the property of late Sh. Shonka Ram. The defendants further avers that alothough their civil suit was dismissed by lower Court however their appeal was partly allowed by ld. Appellate Court. It is contended that before the purported “Will” in favour of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 was inducted as tenant by late Sh. Shonkia Ram in one room and kitchen. It is contended that defendant No.1 constructed three pucca rooms in 1990 and no construction was raised after 1995. The defendants also claim ownership of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Alternatively, the defendants contend that they are in lawful possession of the suit property as tenant and since the suit property is situated in municipal area, therefore, they can only be evicted by the Rent Controller and not through a Civil Suit. 4. 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 decree of possession, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.1,08,000/- as use and occupation charges w.e.f. November, 2008? OPP 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4-A. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 5. OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.1,08,000/- as use and occupation charges w.e.f. November, 2008? OPP 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4-A. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel? OPD. 7. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendants/appellants herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. With respect to the extant suit khasra numbers, defendant No.1, Kamla Devi, had, previously instituted a civil suit, bearing No. 614-1 of 1999, before the learned trial Court concerned, rearing therein, an, espousal for rendition, of, a decree for declaration, and, for permanent prohibitory injunction. The afore espousal stood rested, upon, a testamentary disposition executed, vis-a-vis, her by one Shonkia Ram. However, the afore propagation, of, the plaintiff therein (defendant No.1 in the extant suit), stood rejected, by the learned trial Court concerned, through, a verdict, rendered upon, Civil Suit No.614-1 of 99, (i) also the further relief claimed therein, for, rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers therein, and, analogous to the suit khasra numbers hereat, also stood declined to defendant No.1 herein (plaintiff in the afore suit). In an appeal carried therefrom, by the afore aggrieved Kamla Devi, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court proceeded to affirm, the, declining, of, relief of rendition, of, a declaratory decree, vis-a-vis, the thereat suit khasra numbers, as, analogous to the extant suit khasra numbers, (ii) yet proceeded to reverse, the, finding recorded by the learned trial Court, vis-a-a-vis, the declining(s) qua the afore Kamla Devi, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, (iii) and, also rather proceeded to grant qua her a relief qua, till, her settled possession, upon, the suit khasra nubers, is, through process of law, concerted to be retrieved, from her, thereupto, her possession thereon, not warranting its being disturbed. 7. 7. The afore conclusive verdict pronounced in the earlier suit, vis-a-vis, suit khasra numbers, common to both the earlier suit, and, to, in the extant suit, even though, the defendant, in, the earlier suit was one Durga Ram, who, however, remains unimpleaded in the apposite array of parties in the extant suit, negatives the defendants' espousal (ii) given reiteratedly, the binding, and, conclusive effect of the verdict pronounced, upon, the earlier suit, remaining intact, (iii) conspicuously, vis-a-vis, the failure of afore Kamla Devi to establish her entitlement, to, the suit property, on anvil, of, a purported Will executed in her favour, by one Shonkia Ram. (iii) Rather with forthright evidence making emergences qua after rendition, of, a conclusive binding decree, upon, the earlier suit, the defendant in the earlier suit, one Durga Ram, hence, executing a registered deed of conveyance, vis-a-vis, the suit property, in favour of the plaintiff, (iv) and, also when valid concurrent findings stand returned, by both the learned Courts below, vis-a-vis, valid and due execution of Ex.PW2/A, inter se the plaintiff, and, one Durga Ram, who, stood arrayed as defendant in the earlier suit, (v) reinforcingly, settles, the, trite factum qua the disentitlement, of, the afore Kamla Devi hence to stake any claim, on anvil, of, the afore testamentary disposition, vis-a-vis, the extant khasra numbers. 8. The cullings out, of, the afore facts, (a)importantly the one appertaining to the afore liberty being reserved, vis-a-vis, one Durga Ram, the defendant in the earlier suit, to seek possession in accordance with law, of, the suit khasra numbers, from, the afore Kamla Devi, and, with afore Durga Ram, after rendition of a conclusive verdict pronounced, upon, Civil Suit No. 614-1 of 1999, (i) hence making, through, Ex.PW2/A, a valid alienation of the suit property, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff herein, (ii) does obviously capacitate, the plaintiff, to, through, the extant suit, hence, seek rendition of a decree, for possession, and, to also seek rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, against, the afore Kamla Devi. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant, has, contended with much vigour, before this court, that the concurrent findings rendered, by both the learned Courts below, appertaining to the acquisition, of title, by the defendant(s), vis-a-vis, the suit property, by adverse possession, wanting in legal strength, (i) especially when she had proven all the trite rubric(s) appertaining therewith. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant, has, contended with much vigour, before this court, that the concurrent findings rendered, by both the learned Courts below, appertaining to the acquisition, of title, by the defendant(s), vis-a-vis, the suit property, by adverse possession, wanting in legal strength, (i) especially when she had proven all the trite rubric(s) appertaining therewith. However, the afore contention, is, rather frail, for, the reasons (a) a perusal of the plaint reared in the earlier suit by Kamla Devi, copy whereof, is, borne in Ex.PW1/A, failing to make any disclosure qua, the, afore Kamla Devi, hence, rearing any plea therein, vis-a-vis, hers hence acquiring any title qua the suit property, by adverse possession, (b) nor obviously any issue stood struck qua therewith nor any evidence stood adduced thereon, and, hence no findings stood earlier rendered, upon, the afore propagation, as, stands reared only before this Court, by the aggrieved defendant. The afore omission, of, afore Kamla Devi, to, in the earlier suit hence rear the afore propagation, attracts qua her the principle of estoppel, constituted under the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, (c) and, attraction whereof qua her, is, reinforced by the factum qua in the earlier suit, hers rather claiming qua hers acquiring title qua the suit property, under a testamentary disposition executed, vis-a-vis, her by one Shonkia Ram, (d) espousal whereof stood dispelled, by, rather concurrent verdicts recorded, upon, the earlier suit by the learned trial Court, and, by the learned First Appellate Court, (e) also thereupon, it is to be concluded, that, the afore plea, as, stands here before reared by one Kamla Devi, in, her written statement filed to the plaint, being construable to be a sheer invention, and, an afterthought. 10. Be that as it may, the aggrieved defendants also proceed to contend, that, during his life time, one Shonkia Ram, had, inducted them, as tenant(s), upon, a portion of the suit property, (i) and, with the property being located within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, (ii) hence, the only valid remedy, available, to the plaintiff for seeking their eviction therefrom, is, comprised, in, the institution of an eviction petition, before the learned Rent Controller concerned. However, the afore contention, is, not bedrocked, upon, any deposition in consonance therewith, being rendered by DW-1, upon, hers stepping into the witness box, (iii) and, the effect, if any, of afore omission, is fully enhanced, by an echoing occurring in the cross-examination of DW-1, qua hers not making any attornments of rent qua the afore Shonkia Ram. The further effect thereof, being qua with the defendants hence not clinchingly, proving qua theirs attorning any rent, to, the afore deceased Shonkia Ram, (iv) thereupon, it being not concludable qua theirs holding any tenancy rights, upon, any portion of the suit property nor hence it can be concluded, that, if any, portion of the suit property, stands, located, within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, thereupon, also the apt remedy for seeking their eviction, from the suit property, not being, through a petition being filed before the Rent Controller concerned, rather the extantly recoursed remedy being the apt remedy. 11. For the foregoing reason, no substantial question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for determination in the instant appeal. Consequently, there is no merit, in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by 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.