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 of the suit land, was, hence decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of land comprised in khata Khatauni No.22 min/31 min, Khasra No.52, measuring 1-16 bighas, situated at Mauza Kotri, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and that their residential houses are situated on a portion of it denoted by khasra No.52/2 and that the remaining portion of land as denoted by Khasra No.52/1 was cultivable and that on the boundary of this Khasra No.51/1, there are trees of “Dheu', mango and Chakotra (citrus). As far as defendants are concerned, they have got no right, title or interest qua this land comprising Khasra No.52. Despite this, on 24.1.1999, they collected material on Khasra No.52 and forcibly constructed a boundary wall on it with the result, it was divided into two parts. In fact, such construction of boundary wall had been raised, during the night intervening 25/26.1.1999. They also constructed a thatched room and another room of wooden supports covered with a in roof and a latrine in khasra No.52, forcibly without any right, title or interest on 26.1.1999. Although, the plaintiffs had tried to stop them from occupying the aforesaid khasra number and from dispossessing them from its possession and also from raising construction, but they did not pay any heed to their request. In this way, they forcibly occupied a portion of Khasra No.52 by dispossessing the plaintiffs. On 3.2.1999, a tatima was got prepared from Patwari Illaqua and it was found that the defendants were in possession of khasra No.52/1, measuring 1-1 bighas as shown in the tatima. It was further alleged that their possession over the suit land is illegal and that of a trespasser. On 3.2.1999, the defendants had been requested to remove the structures and the boundary wall from the suit land to hand over its vacant possession to them, but they refused to do so. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia cause of action and maintainability etc. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia cause of action and maintainability etc. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land. In fact, the ancestors of the defendants had occupied the suit land on the day of 'Lohri' on 13.1.1948 and constructed a dwelling house for residential purposes thereon. They also planted trees of mangoes, Dheu, citrus etc., on the suit land and as such, since then the suit land is being possessed continuously, peacefully, openly on the spot by the defendants to the knowledge and exclusion of the plaintiffs, who have lost their title over the same and the defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and became owners of the same. As far as their possession over the suit land is concerned, the plaintiffs did not raise any objection. It was further asserted that due to the passage of time, the old 'Chhaper' which was in dilapidated condition was renovated and a tine sheet was put on the roof of the same and rest of the entire house remained in old shape. The suit land was also covered with boundary wall by the defendants, which has been existing, on the spot, for the last more than 50 years. On account of its being muddy and Katcha one, it had fallen. Other allegations were denied. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of possession on the basis of title?OPP 2. Whether the defendants are in adverse possession? If so, its effect? OPD. 3. Relief. 5. 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 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. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 6. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they 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 22.4.2008 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 Courts below have misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied the oral and documentary evidence on record in returning the findings that the defendants have not acquired title on Khasra No.52/1 measuring 15 biswas, by way of adverse possession? 2. Whether the Courts below have erred in not considering admission made by Dinesh Kumar plaintiff himself and as Special attorney of other plaintiffs in the application dated 16.10.2000 along with accompanying affidavit proving the adverse possession of defendants on suit land and, therefore, the impugned judgment, decree are liable to be set aside? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 2: 7. Ex. P-1, exhibit whereof, is the jamabandi vis-avis the suit land, makes display of the plaintiffs being recorded owners of the suit land. Ex.PW2/A prepared in the year 3.2.1999, makes, a graphic disclosure, of the defendants, hence, to the extent of 15 biswas encroaching upon khasra No.52/1. However, the defendants asserted acquisition of title vis-a-vis the aforesaid portion of khasra No.52/1, (a) on anvil, of theirs through their ancestors since 1948 with an animus possidendi, holding, possession thereof, continuously upto the institution of the suit, (b) hence by elapse of the statutorily prescribed period of time, theirs acquiring prescriptive title thereof. Apparently, the propagation aforestated made by the defendants, does prima facie reveals (a) of theirs through their ancestors since the year 1948, and, with an animus possidendi rather holding possession of the suit land; (b) of theirs hence continuously holding it since then upto the institution of the suit; (c) of theirs committing an overt act thereon, comprised in theirs raising a dwelling house; (d) of hence theirs overt act aforestated also being connotative, of theirs openly, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and, with an interest adverse vis-a-vis the plaintiff, hence holding possession thereof. Obviously, hence the aforestated contentions reared by the defendants, in their written statement, do per se prima facie satiate the apposite statutory ingredients constituted, in the apposite Article, of the Limitation Act, for theirs hence being prima facie construable to have acquired prescriptive title vis-a-vis the suit land. 8. However, a part from the pleadings, efficacious evidence in support thereof, is also enjoined to be adduced by the defendants. However, in proof of the aforesaid contentions reared by the defendants in their written statement, DW-1 in his cross-examination, has rather rendered an echoing, with a clear voicing therein, (i) of his denying the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land, (ii) of his rather asserting the defendants' title thereon. Alike DW-1, DW-2 rendered a testification in consonance therewith, (iii) whereupon, it is apt to conclude that the essential rubric for a plea of acquisition, of title by adverse possession, achieving success, comprised, (iv) in the litigants concerned canvassing it, also being enjoined to accept, the title of the adversary or of the landowners concerned, and, also being enjoined, to echo of possession thereof, though illegal, yet being adverse vis-a-vis the party whereagainst whom, it is asserted, (v) rather contrarily remaining wholly unsatiated. Moreover, with the purported overt act, espoused by the defendants, to be, committed by their predecessor-in-interest vis-a-vis the suit land, especially in the year 1948, contended to be comprised in theirs raising a structure upon the suit land, is belied by Ex.PW2/A, not, making any voicing in consonance therewith. Consequently, if no overt acts stood committed, vis-a-vis the suit land, hence, possession if any thereon, with a purported hostile animus, staked by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants vis-a-vis the suit land, rather hence galvanizes the trite inferences (a) of no open adverse proclamation, vis-avis the suit land, hence, being made in the year 1948 by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, (b) nor obviously possession of the suit land, since then, upto the date of institution of the suit, being through their predecessors-in-interest, hence derived by the defendants nor obviously, the essential ingredients thereof, of, the defendants, through, their predecessors-in-interest, and, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, uninterruptedly upto the date of the institution of the suit, further continuously, with an animus possidendi holding possession of the suit land, remains satiated. 9. 9. However, be that as it may, the learned counsel for the defendants, strived to make capitalization, from an affidavit sworn by co-plaintiff Dinesh Kumar, wherein, he has admitted (a) of the defendants holding possession of the suit khasra number since 12 years prior to the institution of the suit; (b) his making an echoing therein of the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, one Chura Ram about 50 years ago rather planting mango trees on the suit land; (c) of an old thatched house being also purportedly raised thereon, by one Chura Ram, house whereof with elapse of time becoming dilapidated, and, it being renovated, and, tin sheets being placed, about 15 years ago, on the roof of the same, (d) for his contending that the aforesaid disclosures, efficaciously proving, the espousal of the defendants, of theirs perfecting title vis-a-vis the suit land. However, the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants has, mis-read, the import of the aforesaid echoing existing, in the affidavit, sworn by one Dinesh Kumar, and, his only focusing upon the aforesaid facets, (e) misreadings whereof, spur, from his omitting to read disclosures, borne therein, qua the apposite awakenings, of the plaintiffs qua the defendants, hence, holding possession of the suit land, being sequel of a demarcation being held, in the year 1999. The aforesaid echoing hence enhances, (f) an inference that prior to the demarcation of the suit land being held, the plaintiffs being not aware of the defendants, holding possession, of any part of the suit khasra numbers, (g) with consequential effect of, the plaintiffs/respondents being neither aware nor holding knowledge of the defendants/appellants or their predecessor-in-interest, holding possession of any part of the suit kahsra numbers, (h) nor it can be concluded, of, the defendants/appellants openly, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, rather commencing, and, with an hostile animus hence possession of the suit khasra number. Contrarily, reiteratedly, when knowledge, of the aforesaid possession, stood gained, by the plaintiffs, only upon a demarcation being held, (i) besides when no entry, is borne in any revenue record, in personification, of the defendants, ever holding possession of the suit khasra number, (j) whereupon, it could be inferable of the plaintiffs, prior to the demarcation being thereat carried of the suit khasra number, being aware of the defendants/appellants holding possession of the suit khasra numbers, (j) wherefrom, it may be firmly concluded, of, thereat theirs holding knowledge, (k) hence any possession qua the suit land as, held, by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants/appellants or by the defendants, lacks the essential element, of it, being to the knowledge of the true owner or it being held, openly or adversarially against, the interest of the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest. 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 plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/appellants. 11. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the judgment and decree 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.