JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The plaintiffs'' suit for rendition of a decree, for declaration besides for rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction, stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiffs, the latter Court allowed their appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court''s judgment and decree of dismissal of the plaintiff''s suit. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs'' filed a suit for grant of relief of declaration to the effect that the land comprised in Khata No.8, Khatauni No.41, Khasra No.469/183, measuring 0-13 bighas, situated in revenue estate Majjat, Tehsil and District Shimla has been wrongly and illegally mutated in the ownership and possession of the defendants, vide mutation No.1181 and 1182 of 4.9.1995, because the entries of gair marussi has been recorded in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the said entries not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Further relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has been sought, restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is averred that late Daya Nand, father of the plaintiffs stands recorded as one of the co-sharer in the above land. On the demise of late Daya Nand, the plaintiffs being his Class-1 heirs, succeeded to the suit land by way of inheritance. It is averred that as per jamabandi for the year 1960-61 with respect to khasra No.183, measuring 1-7 bighas, late Sh. Daya Nand was recorded as one of the co-sharer in the column of ownership and in column of possession. He vide sale deed of 29.12.1966 entered at Sr. No.170 in the office of Sub Registrar sold two biswa of land from the aforesaid khasra No.183 and two bighas and two biswa from Khasra No.178 and fifiteen biswa from the land comprised in Khasra No.181, total measuring 3 bigha and seven biswa to Sh. Roop Ram, predecessor-interest of defendants No.1 to 4 and in the regard mutation No.644 of 26.6.1968 was mutated in the revenue record. Roop Ram, predecessor-interest of defendants No.1 to 4 and in the regard mutation No.644 of 26.6.1968 was mutated in the revenue record. It has been averred that predecessor-ininterest of the defendants in collusion with the Halqua Patwari not only got the entries of two biswa out of Khasra No.183 so sold to him made in the revenue record, but got incorporated without any legal basis entry of thirteen biswa of more land of Khasra No.183, in his name, firstly on account of Bila Lagan Bawaja Rahain and later got changed those entries on account of Bila Lagan Bawaja Rahan without the knowledge of the plaintiff and their predecessor-in-interest. Further the defendants taking the undue advantage of wrong entries existing in the revenue record firstly got sanctioned a mutation No.1181, of 4.9.1995 of inheritance in their favour and on the same day vide mutation No.1182. The defendants thereafter started interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and the fact came to the notice of the plaintiffs on 20.09.1995. It is averred that the defendants recently on 8.4.1996 have threatened to alienate the suit land on the basis of wrong and illegal revenue entries existing in their favour. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have has taken preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action estoppel and valuation. It is alleged that late Roop Ram was owner in possession of land as entered against khasra No.469/183 min, measuring 13 biswa and the said land was purchased by late Roop Ram. Since, the date of purchase of this land, late Roop Ram owned and possessed this 13 biswa of land as of right, continuously, openly peacefully and to the knowledge of the concerned, during his life time, upto 1979, when he died and thereafter this land became absolute property of the defendants, who are legal heirs of late Sh. Roop Ram and daughters of late Roop Ram. The entries in the revenue record contrary to this claim of the replying defendants are illegal, wrong and those are not binding upon the defendants. The suit is also stated to be bad for failure to join all the necessary parties. It is alleged that out of area of khasra No.183, late Sh. Roop Ram had already purchased 13 biswas of land as is evident from the entries carried in the jamabandi for the year 1964-1965. The suit is also stated to be bad for failure to join all the necessary parties. It is alleged that out of area of khasra No.183, late Sh. Roop Ram had already purchased 13 biswas of land as is evident from the entries carried in the jamabandi for the year 1964-1965. However out of total area of khasra No.183, measuring 1 bigha, 7 biswas, late Sh. Roop Ram purchased two biswas of more land along with land as entered against khasra No.178/1, measuring 2 bighas 10 biswa and Kh. No.181 min, measuring 15 biswas, total measuring 3 bighas, 7 biswas and the requisite mutation on the basis of registered sale deed vide mutation No.644 was entered and attested in favour of late Sh. Roop Ram on 22.11.1967. The alleged collusions have been denied. It is alleged that after the purchase of this land, neither the plaintiffs, nor their predecessors were allowed to enter upon this land and during his life time, late Sh. Roop Ram owned and possessed and occupied and enjoyed this 13 biswa of land, openly, peacefully, as of right, title and interest of any kind over any portion of this land. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have wrongly claimed the khasra No.183 as Bila Lagan Bawaja Rahain. It is alleged in the alternative, if purchase of this 13 biswa of land by late Sh. Roop Ram is not found to have been proved, though it was purchased by him prior to 1964, even then, since this area always remained during the life time of Roop Ram in exclusive ownership and possession to the knowledge of the previous owners, thereafter in possession of the defendants, hence, the defendants have become owner thereof by efflux of time. 4. 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 decree of declaration, as alleged?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as alleged?OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing he present suit?OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. 7. Relief. 5. x xX x xX x xX 6. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing he present suit?OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. 7. Relief. 5. x xX x xX x xX 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiffs/respondents herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/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, on 23.07.2008, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the plea of limitation as raised by the defendants having not considered by the learned District Judge though the claim was held to be barred by limitation by trial Court, therefore, the findings of the lower appellate Court are liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the material admission on the part of late Shri Daya Nand, predecessor of the plaintiffs, belies the claim of plaintiffs inasmuch as that he admitted the claim of the respondent continuously since 1964 till his death because no challenge was thrown by him to the revenue entries and also that mutations NO.1181 and 1182 having been attested in his presence in favour of the appellants on 4.9.1995, therefore, the respondents are bound by such admissions of the deceased and they are estopped to file the suit? 3. Whether as per revenue record available on record, the subject matter of dispute could not be decided in the absence of all the necessary parties because S/Shri Shanka Lal and Kanshi Ram were recorded owners with respect to the suit land as per entries in the jamabandi for the years 1960 and 1964? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 8. Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 8. It is pertinent to mention here that upon the appeal coming up for hearing, before this Court, on 18.11.2010, this Court rendered the hereinafter extracted directions, upon, the learned First Appellate Court:- "The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Court No.4, Shimla has framed the following issues on 13th August, 1999: i) . Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of declaration, as alleged? OPP. ii) . Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as alleged?OPP. iii) . Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. iv) . Whether the suit is time barred?OPD. v) . Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing he present suit?OPD. vi) . Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. vii) . Relief. There is a short discussion on issue No.4 in para 7 of the judgment of the trial Court. The fact of the matter is that plaintiffs'' suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Court No.4, Shimla. Respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla against the judgement and decree dated 17th March, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.4, Shimla. However, surprisingly, there is no discussion on the question of limitation. The question of limitation ought to have been considered by the learned District Judge in right earnest. In view of this, with consent of the parties, the matter is remanded to the first appellate Court only to give findings on the question of limitation. It is made clear that it is a limited remand. The parties shall restrict their arguments only to the issue of limitation on the date to be fixed by the learned first appellate Court. Consequently, the parties are directed to appear before the learned first appellate Court on December, 01, 2010. The learned first appellate Court shall return the findings to this Court on the limited issue, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The records be sent back to the first appellate Court." A perusal of the aforesaid directions, discloses that the learned first appellate Court, was, mandated to return findings, only upon the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit, being barred by limitation. The records be sent back to the first appellate Court." A perusal of the aforesaid directions, discloses that the learned first appellate Court, was, mandated to return findings, only upon the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit, being barred by limitation. The learned First Appellate Court after remand vis-a-vis it, by this Court, under directions pronounced, on 18.11.2010, proceeded to, on 14.12.2010, return affirmative findings upon the issue appertaining, to the plaintiffs'' suit being barred by limitation. Consequential effect thereof being, of, the effect(s) of affirmative findings prior thereto, rendered, by the learned First Appellate Court, on issues, excepting the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit being barred by limitation, hence standing obviously blunted. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants herein, has contended with vigour (i) that the affirmative findings rendered by the learned First Appellate Court vis-a-vis, the apposite issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit being barred by limitation, (ii) especially, when hence the plaintiffs are non suited or a decree of dismissal, of their suit hence stands pronounced, (iii) thereupon, the plaintiffs were enjoined, to institute a properly constituted appeal, before this Court, (iv) whereupon the preferment of cross-objections, by the plaintiffs vis-a-vis the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, on, the issue appertaining to their suit being barred by limitation, are rather rendered not maintainable. For gauging the worth, of the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing, for the defendants/appellants, it is imperative to allude to the provisions, borne in Order 41, Rules 25 & 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the CPC, Provisions whereof read as under:- "25. For gauging the worth, of the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing, for the defendants/appellants, it is imperative to allude to the provisions, borne in Order 41, Rules 25 & 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the CPC, Provisions whereof read as under:- "25. Where Appellate Court may frame issues and refer them for trial to court whose decree appealed from.- Where the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact, which appears to the Appellate Court essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits, the Appellate Court may, if necessary, frame issues, and refer the same for trial to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and in such case shall direct such court to take the additional evidence required; and such court shall proceed to try such issues, and shall return the evidence to the Appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons there for within such time as may be fixed by the Appellate Court or extended by it from time to time. 26. Findings and evidence to be put on record-Objections to finding.- (1) Such evidence and findings shall form part of the record in the suit; and either party may, within a time to be fixed by the Appellate Court, present a memorandum of objections to any finding. 26. Findings and evidence to be put on record-Objections to finding.- (1) Such evidence and findings shall form part of the record in the suit; and either party may, within a time to be fixed by the Appellate Court, present a memorandum of objections to any finding. (2) Determination of appeal-After the expiration of the period so fixed for presenting such memorandum the Appellate Court shall proceed to determine the appeal." Since, this Court on 18.11.2010, (i) made an order, for limited remand, upon, the learned first appellate Court, and, when in compliance therewith, the learned first appellate Court recorded affirmative findings vis-a-vis the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit being barred by limitation, (ii) also when the said issue, stood already struck earlier, whereas, non rendition of findings thereupon aptly constrained this Court, to given the aforesaid infirmity, hencedirect the learned first appellate Court, to render findings thereon, (iii) obviously renders, the mandate rendered earlier, on 18.11.2010, to fall within the ambit of Order 41, Rule 26 of the CPC, AND, within the ambit, of, the phrase " or to determine any question of fact" borne in Rule 24 of Order 41 of the CPC, (iv) Rieteratedly, the learned first appellate Court, after, meteing compliance with the order, of, limited remand pronounced earlier by this Court, transmitted all the relevant records vis-a-vis this Court, (v) sequel whereof, is that the mandate comprised, in the second part of sub-rule (1) to Rule 26 of Order 41 of the CPC, is enjoined to obtain assured satisfaction, (vi) for enabling the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, to contend that the espousal, of the defendants''/appellants'' counsel, that given the rendition of decree of dismissal of the plaintiffs'' suit, arising, from its being barred by limitation, (vii) it was rather incumbent upon them, to, institute a properly constituted appeal before this Court, (viii) AND that the cross-objections preferred against the findings, rendered by the learned first appellate Court, upon, the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs suit being barred by limitation, in sequel to, on order of remand being pronounced by this Court, (ix) being of no legal consequence besides theirs being not maintainable. (x) rather contrarily, significantly being meritless. (x) rather contrarily, significantly being meritless. The second part of sub-rule (1) to Rule 26 of Order 41, of the CPC, is couched in the phraseology "either party may, within a time to be fixed by the Appellate Court, present a memorandum of objections to any finding" (xi) hence, it is to be guaged, whether this Court, had afforded any time vis-a-vis the plaintiffs/respondents, to, after its receiving findings, being rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, upon the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit being barred by limitation, whereupon, hence evident satiation would occur vis-a-vis the nuance , of the aforesaid apt statutory phrase, (xii) upon satiation thereof being evinced, from, aforesaid orders hence existing on the file, rather would render the crossobjections being construable to be maintainable. For making the aforsaid adjudication, an allusion to the order(s) , rendered by this Court, on 11.3.2011, 13.4.2011, 21.04.2011 and on 17.6.2011 is imperative, orders whereof are extracted hereinafter:- "11.03.2011 Mr. Ramesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is permitted to file objection to te findings recorded by the 1st Appellate Court, within four weeks. 13.04.2011 Objections stand filed by the appellants. List this matter during next week. 21.04.2011 Mr. Ramesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted three weeks'' time to file reply to the objections filed by the respondents. 17.6.2011 Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is permitted to file reply to the objection during the course of the day. List next week." A perusal of the aforesaid extracted orders, makes vivid disclosure (I) of the counsel for the appellants, being permitted, to file objections vis-a-vis the apposite findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court, upon, the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit, being barred by limitation. Upon anvil thereof, the counsel for the appellants/defendants, contends, that no permission within, the ambit of the second part of sub-rule (1) to Rule 26 of Order 41 of the CPC was granted vis-a-vis the plaintiffs/respondents, (ii) hence for want of non satiation therewith, renders the objections constituted before this Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, being construable to be not maintainable. In making the aforesaid submission(s) , the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants, appears, to gather strength, from, mere inadvertence(s) , occurring in the aforesaid orders. In making the aforesaid submission(s) , the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants, appears, to gather strength, from, mere inadvertence(s) , occurring in the aforesaid orders. Even if, the inadvertence aforesaid, occurring, in the afore extracted orders, remained uncorrected, nonetheless a reading of the orders pronounced, on 17.6.2011, rather, nails, a firm conclusion (iii) of prior thereto opportunities, granted to the counsel for the appellant rather being construable to be opportunities being granted to the counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, dehors no corrections thereof being made. The aforesaid conclusion is strengthened by the fact, (iv) of the apt record(s) not making any disclosure(s) of the appellants/defendants, in pursuance to the orders recorded, on 11.3.2011, proceeding to, file any objections vis-a-vis the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, upon the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit being barred by limitation, (v) further, even otherwise with apt affirmative findings upon the apposite issue, standing recorded vis-a-vis the defendants/appellants, obviously, hence , there is no occasion, to make any conclusion, of, apposite permissions being either sought for or granted by this Court vis-a-vis the appellants. (vi) More so, when a perusal of the order, of, 21.4.2011, unveils, of, permission being granted by this Court to the counsel, for the appellants, to within three weeks'' institute a reply to the objections, filed by the defendants/respondents, in pursuance whereof a reply thereto came to be filed by the defendants/appellants. Consequently, upon, the aforesaid construction(s) , being, made by this Court, upon, the aforesaid orders made by this Court, also when hence the mandate of the apt second part of sub rule (1) to Rule 26 of Order 41 of the CPC, is meted satiation, (vii) thereupon, the cross-objections filed, by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents vis-a-vis the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court, upon, the apposite issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit being barred by limitation, are properly constituted, (viii) also they fall within the domain, of the apposite statutory provisions, (ix) AND the contention, of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants, of, theirs being mis-constituted, is not worthy for acceptance nor obviously it is befitting to conclude, of any enjoined necessity being cast, upon the plaintiffs/respondents, to institute a properly constituted statutory appeal, for theirs impeaching the findings recorded by the learned first appellant Court, upon, the issue appertaining to the plaintiffs'' suit being barred, by limitation. 10. 10. The jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, borne in Ex.PW1/A, makes, a disclosure (i) of khasra No.183 being in classification column thereof, hence reflected as ghasni and its carrying, an area of 1 bigha, and, 7 biswas. The co-owners thereof, are, one Daya Nand, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, one Shankar Lal, both of whom cumulatively hold share therein, and, the third share holder thereof being one Kanshi Ram, who exclusively holds share therein. Uncontrovertedly, in respect of the aforesaid khasra number, a sale deed, was, executed by the predecessorin-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, one Daya Nand vis-avis the predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants, namely one Roop Ram, (ii) sale deed whereof, was, confined only to an area, of two biswas, of, land from amongst the total holding of 6 biswas, held therein by the aforesaid Daya Nand. Uncontrovertedly, an uncontested mutation, in respect thereof, was recorded besides attested on 11.4.1967, order of mutation whereof is comprised in Ex. PW1/K. (iii) A reading thereof discloses, of, it being attested only vis-a-vis two biswas of land, from amongst 6 biswas of land, held by the predecessor-in-interest, of the plaintiffs, in the undivided holding, which he held along with one Shankar Lal and one Kanshi Ram. However, mutation No.1181 recorded, on 4.9.1995, mutation whereof is comprised in Ex.PW1/J, was attested vis-a-vis 13 biswas of land qua the successors-in-interest of one Roop Ram, though vis-a-vis whom, prior thereto, a mutation comprised in Ex.PW1/K, rather stood attested. On a reading of the aforesaid order of mutation, the learned First Appellate Court, had concluded, (iv) of with one Daya Nand recording his presence, therebefore, at the time contemporaneous to its attestation, both he and on his demise, his successors-in-interest hence being barred to contest its validity. The learned First Appellate Court, upon, an analysis of both the documentary as well as oral evidence, has concluded, (v) of, with the defendants/appellants being in possession of the suit property, hence, no decree of permanent prohibitory injunction being affordable vis-a-vis the plaintiffs. 11. The merit of the aforesaid contention, has to be adjudicated by juxtaposing it vis-a-vis the propagation(s) , reared by the defendants/appellants in their written statement. 11. The merit of the aforesaid contention, has to be adjudicated by juxtaposing it vis-a-vis the propagation(s) , reared by the defendants/appellants in their written statement. (i) A perusal thereof discloses, that, in respect of 13 biswas of land, qua land whereof an order of mutation comprised in EX.PW1/J, was attested , being espoused therein to stand purchased in the year 1965 by their predecessor-in-interest, namely, one Roop Ram, (ii) and of since then his being in possession thereof. The aforesaid pleadings, constituted, an admission of the defendants/appellant vis-a-vis the mode of theirs asserting acquisition, of, a valid of title thereto (iii) AND of theirs hence holding an indefeasible title visa-vis 13 biswas of land, besides also an admission qua the evident mechanism deployed by them, for validating the order of mutation, comprised in Ex.PW1/J. However, in support thereof, no sale deed, came to be adduced into evidence. Contrarily, the aforesaid admission, per se negate(s) the worth of any entries, existing, in any revenue record, of one Roop Ram holding, as a gair marussi, the area(s) of land, reflected in Ex.PW1/J nor any reflections occurring in Ex.PW1/J of his successors-in-interest, holding it, as gair marussi hence enjoy any aura of any truth. Contrarily ex facie any entries in negation, of, the pleadings reared by the defendants, in their written statement, render any reflection, in contradiction thereto, occurring in any order of mutation or in any revenue record, to be hence obviously negated rather they are prima facie construable to be inefficaciously and fictitiously recorded, rendering them uncreditworthy. 12. Nowat, an allusion to Ex.PW1/B is imperative, for determining the extent of lands, held, upon the suit khasra number, by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondents. As aforestated, one Dayanand cumulatively along with his brother, one Shankar held 13 biswas of land, in the undivided holdings, measuring 1-7 bighas, whereas, the entire remaining share was singularly held by one Kanshi Ram, (i) hence the predecessor-in-interest, of the plaintiffs/respondents, could, make a valid alienation(s) thereof, only to the extent of 6 biswas, AND, not beyond thereof. Alienation vis-a-vis 2 biswas of land, borne therein, is, for reasons aforestated, a valid alienation thereof. Alienation vis-a-vis 2 biswas of land, borne therein, is, for reasons aforestated, a valid alienation thereof. However, the alienation(s) , of, or bestowment of rights, under, Ex.PW1/J upon the successors-in-interest, of one Roop Ram, without, the defendants/appellants propagation, (a) of their predecessor-in-interest, purchasing the aforesaid area, of, land before 1964, (b) hence, withstanding evidentiary proof, being lent in consonance therewith, was rather obviously, rendered bereft of any vigour, (c) even otherwise, the aforesaid espousal is rudderless, (d) given one Dayanand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, not evidently being empowered, to beyond 6 biwas, of, land he validly held, in the total undivided holdings, hence make any valid alienation(s) thereof visa-vis the plaintiffs or their predecessors-interest, (e) unless, his brother Shankar Lal, holding along with him another 6 biswas also was joined in the array of legal combatants also his successors-in-interest, were added, (f) for ensuring that the aforesaid Shankar Lal, along with Dayanand, prior to 1964, hence made valid alienation of their joint shares vis-a-vis the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, namely, one Roop Ram. However, all the aforesaid persons remained unimpleaded in the extant suit. Consequently, for their non impleadment, it is unjust to pronounce, upon the efficacy of Ex.PW1/J, (g) especially with its comprising therein, an area of land, much beyond the alienable share in the suit property, of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondents, namely, one Daya Nand. Consequently, also the principle(s) of natural justice warranted impleadment of Shankar Lal and if deceased, his successors-in-interest. Contrarily, of his non impleadment, and, if deceased, his successors-in-interest, in the array of co-defendants, if the extant suit, renders the ill consequence of injustice being hence perpetuated, upon, the valid title held by one Shankar Lal in the suit property or on his demise, by his successors-in-interest. For obviating their befalment upon the aforesaid, Ex.PW1/j, necessitates, its being hence declared null and void. 13. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs'' suit is, not, for recovery of possession, rather, is, for rendition, of a decree for declaration besides is for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. For rendering an efficacious decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, the peremptory requirements, (i) are of the party claiming it, being in evident possession of the suit property. For rendering an efficacious decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, the peremptory requirements, (i) are of the party claiming it, being in evident possession of the suit property. With this Court negating, for reasons aforestated, the effect(s) of all the apposite thereto entries, if any, conspicuously on anvil of their omissions, to by cogent evidence hence prove the manner of acquisition by them, of, a valid title qua the area reflected in Ex.PW1/J, also this Court concomitantly hence ousting the effects of all reflections in any revenue record, in contradiction thereof, (ii) besides with this Court invalidating Ex.PW1/J, does concomitantly, upsurge a conclusion, of any title as asserted, by the defendants/appellants, qua land borne in Ex.PW1/J being not amenable to be construable to be a validly asserted claim vis-a-vis it. Though upon, a demarcation report being placed on record, a firm conclusion would be nailed qua the area, in respect whereof, Ex.PW1/J stood recorded, besides qua the relevant sites or specifically delineated spot(s) , vividly depicted in the apposite tatima prepared in sequel thereto, (iii) besides would stall any inference, qua the fictitiousness, of the entries recorded in the revenue record, reflecting, the defendants/appellants as owners in possession of the suit property, whereupon hence this Court, would be barred to proceed, to, for want thereof, hence, analyze or negate the worth of oral evidence testified in rebuttal thereof by the DWs. (iv) AND, this court would rather hence conclude of the presumption of truth enjoyed by the revenue tries being dislodged. 14. The oral evidence adduced by the defendant, is comprised, in the statement of DW-1. In his statement , he rendered a testification in support of the defendants/appellants, holding, possession of the suit land. His testimony, is, lent support by DW-2 and by DW3. Implicit reliance, was placed, by the learned first Appellate Court vis-a-vis the testification of DW-2, and, upon the testification of DW-3. In his statement , he rendered a testification in support of the defendants/appellants, holding, possession of the suit land. His testimony, is, lent support by DW-2 and by DW3. Implicit reliance, was placed, by the learned first Appellate Court vis-a-vis the testification of DW-2, and, upon the testification of DW-3. Consequently, the learned Appellate Court, imputed reliance vis-a-vis the testification of DW-3, merely on the ground of his holdings, existing, in close proximity, to the suit property, (i) despite the fact, of, DW-3 not graphically disclosing, the factum of, any demarcation of the suit property, being carried in his presence, (ii) in sequel whereto, a tatima was prepared with specific earmarking(s) therein of the spot, wherein the suit land existed, besides its fixing the identity of the suit property, at its relevant site, (iii) yet despite his aforesaid omission, he firmly testified of the suit property being located upon the contentious khasra No.183. (iv) AND his testification was imputed credence. The aforesaid omissions were rather significant, especially when effect(s) thereof warranted, succor, from a valid demarcation being placed on record, in sequel whereto the precise location besides the identity of the suit property, existing, upon the relevant contentious spot would stand proven. (v) Contrarily, the aforesaid omission, carries, the further effect of the defendants/appellants'' espousal, of theirs holding possession, of the contentious khasra number, being not worthy for acceptance, rather only for the aforesaid omission, the plaintiffs/appellants'', contention, of theirs holding possession of the contentious portion of khasra No.183, is hence amenable for acceptance, (vi) reiteratedly given all the aforesaid omissions, negating, the defendants/appellants'' espousal, rather hence, thereupon, alone, the plaintiffs/respondents proving their assertions, (vii) hence galvanises a conclusion, of, with the cause(s) of action, arising, vis-a-vis the plaintiffs/respondents, upon, the defendants/appellants making invasions in respect of the suit land, thereupon, alone the plaintiff''s suit is rendered construable to fall within limitation. 15. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 16. In view of above discussion, RSA No. 478 of 2007 is dismissed, whereas, Cross-objections No. 42 of 2017 are allowed. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 16. In view of above discussion, RSA No. 478 of 2007 is dismissed, whereas, Cross-objections No. 42 of 2017 are allowed. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs/Cross-objectors is decreed for joint possession, of the suit land along with other co-owners, and, the revenue entries showing the defendants or their predecessor-in-interest as owner/gair marusi in respect of the suit land, comprised, in Khewat No.8, Khatauni No.41, Khasra No.469/183, measuring 13 biswas situate at revenue estate Majthal, Tehsil and District Shimla and more particularly as per mutation No.1181 and 1182 of 4.9.1995 are wrong, and , illegal and as such are declared not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit land, as one of the co-sharers in possession. The plaintiffs are further entitled to, in accordance with law, seek partition of the suit land by metes and bounds. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.