JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for possession as well as for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit khasra numbers, was, hence decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the site shown by letters ABCDEFGH shown red in colour in the site plan and for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering, raising any construction, changing nature, cutting, removing or selling trees or fruit from or over the land denoted by letters MNOPQRSTU EFGHADCB shown in green colour in site plan being part of land measuring 0-03-95 hectares. It has been pleaded the suit land in coming in their possession along with other co-sharers and on some part, old abadies were existing which had fallen, but remains of which existed shown in red colour with letters IJKL in the site plan. The plaintiffs have planted Khatta, trees and bananas and that the defendant being shrewed and headstrong person, three years before illegally encroached upon by raising construction upon suit land shown as ABCDEFGH in the site land and has got himself recorded as Kabaj upon land measuring 0-02-94 hectares. In khasra Nos. 1976 and 1977, gair mumkin abadi of the defendant has been mentioned contrary to actual and factual position on the spot, for which order recording him as Kabaj has been passed at the back of the plaintiffs in collusion with settlement authorities. The plaintiffs have also though admitted possession of the defendant upon Area A to E but have claimed to be in possession of remaining land shown by letters MNOPQRSTU, EFGHADCB and rooms shown by letters IJKL in the site plan. Cause of action arose to the plaintiffs hen they learnt about illegal construction and when defendant started interfering in the remaining land having collection construction material. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia cause of action, estoppel, maintainability, limitation, valuation, non joinder etc. On merits, claimed his abadi and cow shed upon suit land since the time of his ancestors besides stated that there was no abadi except the suit land. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia cause of action, estoppel, maintainability, limitation, valuation, non joinder etc. On merits, claimed his abadi and cow shed upon suit land since the time of his ancestors besides stated that there was no abadi except the suit land. It is alleged that predecessors of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have been seeing their possession to which they never objected, thus, the plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit. Defendant further alleged ownership of suit land by adverse possession being in possession of the suit land since the time immemorial. The predecessors of the defendants had planted fruit bearing trees over the suit land 20 years back and cowshed of defendant had damaged, during rainy season. Accordingly, the defendant claimed to have become owner of the suit land by adverse possession and has resisted the suit by submitting that the plaintiffs never come in possession of the suit land in any capacity and that the order dated 2.4.1988 of A.C. 2nd Grade was passed in presence of Rattan Dev, one of the co-sharers against which plaintiffs did not prefer any appeal which has become final. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, 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 plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of possession? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no enforcible cause of action, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of parties, as alleged? OPD. 9. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are not proved, whether the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD. 10. Relief. 6. OPD. 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of parties, as alleged? OPD. 9. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are not proved, whether the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD. 10. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/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 defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he 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 24.07.2008 admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and the statements of DW1 and DW2, the report of the Local Commissioner, Ex.DW6/A, AW1/A to AW1/C? 2. Whether in view of admitted allegation in the plaint that the defendant was a cosharer and had raised construction on the land and on the proof that the appellant had raised construction on the land long before the filing of the suit, a decree for demolition of structure and possession of land and injunction could be passed? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 2: 8. Uncontrovertedly, in the jamabandi, apposite to the suit land, the plaintiffs are recorded as owners-in-possession thereof. For sustaining his purported unauthorised possession of the suit khasra numbers, the defendant had canvassed (i), of, his since times immemorial, with an animus possidendi, being in, unbroken and uninterrupted possession, of the suit land, (ii) hence, with his possession vis-a-vis the suit land, since then, continuing, beyond the statutorily mandated period of time, especially upto, the time of institution of the plaint, thereupon, his perfecting his title thereon, by prescription. However, the aforesaid claim of the defendant is per se negatived, by his placing on record Ex.D-2. Even if, Ex. However, the aforesaid claim of the defendant is per se negatived, by his placing on record Ex.D-2. Even if, Ex. D-2, for want of any challenge being made vis-a-vis it, in the plaint, by the plaintiff, hence, acquires conclusivity, (iii) yet with its close reading, not bearing out the contention, raised in the written statement, of the defendant, of, his with an animus possidendi, through his ancestors, since times immemorial, upto, the stage, of, institution of the suit, hence, holding possession of the suit land, (iv) thereupon, his possession ripening, by prescription, into absolute ownership thereto. Corollary thereof is even if any conclusivity is acquired by Ex. D-2, (v) thereupon, reliance placed thereon, by the defendant, is scuttled (vi) besides torpedoes his contention, reared in the written statement, of his since times immemorial, through, his ancestors, with an animus possidendi, holding possession of the suit land, AND his, now at, perfecting his title thereon, by prescription. Contrarily, it has to be concluded that, only, from the date of making of Ex. D-2, the defendant rather commenced his possession over the suit khasra numbers, obviously, with the suit, standing filed, within less than 11 years elapsing therefrom, (vii) consequently, thereupon, the expiring, of, the mandated period, of 12 years, since the making of, Ex. D-2, upto the date of institution of the suit, for the defendant being empowered to successfully rear the plea, of his acquiring title by adverse possession qua the suit land rather remains uncompleted, (viii) in sequel, the defendant can not be concluded to have perfected his title by prescription, qua the suit land. Furthermore, the order comprised in Ex. D-2, does not articulate, that possession, if any, with an animus possidendi is held by the defendant, of the suit khasra number, (ix) thereupon, also the imperative rubric, of valid acquisition of title by prescription, by elapse of the statutorily mandated period of time, is also grossly amiss therein nor on its anvil, any capitalization can be garnered by the defendant, for his giving succor vis-a-vis his aforesaid plea. 9. 9. Be that as it may, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the learned trial Court, for determining the extent of the purported encroachment, made, by the defendant upon the suit land, in sequel whereto, he furnished his report, report whereof is comprised in Ex.DW6/A. DW-6 stepped into witness box and was subjected, to a scathing cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. However, a close reading of his cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff rather unveils of his acquiescing vis-a-vis the affirmative suggestions, personificatory of the defendant hence holding possession of the suit land are embedded therein. The further effect thereof, is, especially, given its standing tendered by him, of hence the defendant acquiescing to his holding possession, of the suit khasra number. The consequence thereof, is, non rendition, if any, of any orders by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, an application filed before it, by the defendant for seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner, is wholly insignificant, for the reasons, (a) of the defendant not asserting any affirmative title vis-a-vis the suit land, anvilled upon any document bespeaking his making its valid acquisition, (b) rather when his claim qua acquisition of title by prescription or by adverse possession, stands, for reasons aforestated, negated, (c) thereupon, when, (i) appointments of local Commissioners may facilitate demarcations of boundaries, of, contiguous lands, whereon, the respective land owners, hold, affirmative title vis-a-vis their respective adjoining estates, (ii) besides may be for determining, the extent of encroachments made by each upon the adjoining estates of others, whereon, each evidently hold affirmative valid title. (iii) Necessarily, hence, for want of any valid affirmative assertion, of acquisition, of title, by the defendant vis-a-vis the suit khasra number, it was not necessary, for the learned First Appellate Court, to proceed to appoint a local commissioner, for, the latter being enabled, to determine the extent of encroachment, if any, made by the plaintiff upon the purported adjoining estates of the defendant, (iv) rather when the plaintiffs are owners-in-possession, of the suit land AND with the defendant failing to prove acquisition of title, thereon, by adverse possession, in sequel, his eviction therefrom is imperative, as aptly concurrently concluded, by both the learned courts below. 10. 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, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. The appellant is directed to, within two months from today, deposit, the mense profit qua the suit land before the learned trial Court. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.