JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs/appellants herein instituted a suit for possession against the defendants. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiffs' instituted an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, thereupon, the latter Court pronounced a verdict in affirmation to the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the plaintiffs' being aggrieved therefrom, now, concert to assail it before this Court, by instituting therefrom, the instant appeal before this Court. 2. The original plaintiff's case was that he owned and possessed the land comprised in Khewat No.513 min, Khatauni No. 862, measuring 3, Kanal 2 Marla, situated in revenue Village Dharampur, District and Tehsil Una, H.P. About a year anterior to institution of the suit aforesaid, the defendant encroached upon a portion of the suit land, measuring 2 kanal which denoted by letters ABCDE in the site plan. On the aforesaid land, the defendants raised a superstructure which is denoted by letters FGHIJ and shaded in red ink in the site plan. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit land, but they refused to oblige. Hence this suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff and filed written statement, wherein, their defence was of denial of the plaintiff's allegations qua the suit land being encroached by them about a year prior to the institution o of the suit. According to the defendants, they have been in possession of the suit land for the past more than 35 years and the revenue entries showing the plaintiffs to be the owners thereof are wrong. Claiming to have constructed a cattle shed over a portion of the suit land about 30 years and a pucca Kotha and a chhaper over the remaining portion about 15-16 years ago, the defendants averred that besides these structures, they installed a Belna (sugarcane cusher) on the suit land, and that in case the plaintiffs were proved to be the owners of the suit land, they have become owners thereof by way of adverse possession. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit site shown by letters ABCDE by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 2. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit site shown by letters ABCDE by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file this suit? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued, as alleged? OPD. 4. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiffs/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 plaintiffs/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. This Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the estoppel can operate against law and whether a real owner can be estopped from claiming the possession of his property from a stranger having no legal title over the property? 2. Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are perverse to the evidence on record? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2. 7. Uncontrovertedly, the plaintiffs are recorded owners in possession of the suit property. The defendants, resisted the plaintiffs' suit by rearing a plea of theirs becoming owners of the suit land, by way of adverse possession. However, the aforesaid plea, reared, by the defendants vis-a-vis the plaintiffs' suit, for possession, was negatived by the learned trial Court. The defendants did not agitate the dis-affirmative findings rendered by the learned trial Court, upon, the issue appertaining to theirs purportedly becoming owners, of the suit land, by way of adverse possession, thereupon, the pronouncement recorded, upon, the apposite issue No.1 by the learned trial court acquires conclusivity, hence, the defendants are estopped to rear the aforesaid plea, before this Court. 8. 8. Both the learned Courts below, had meted deference, to the factum of the defendants, (i) to the knowledge of the plaintiffs erecting a pucca Kotha and a chhapar 16-17 years, prior to the institution of the suit. The reason for both the learned Courts below imputing credence, to the aforesaid espousal, of the defendants, hence, emanated, from, theirs placing reliance upon Ex.DW4/A, exhibit whereof comprises an application, made, by one Jaswant Singh vis-a-vis the State Electricity Board, for installation of an electricity connection in the suit property. Apparently sanction thereto, was meted, in the year 1980, by the State Electricity Board, meetings whereof are borne by the defendant Jaswant Singh, as reflected by Ex. D-1 to D-7, defraying electricity charges, to the electricity board, for his consuming electricity, for the purpose applied for. The aforesaid inference would suffer negation, in case, evidence, is adduced by the plaintiff, (i) that the sanction meted by the electricity board vis-a-vis the application made by Jaswant Singh, not, appertaining to the structure raised by the defendants, upon, the suit khasra number, (ii) upon firm evidence being adduced, of, the electricity bills not appertaining to the suit premises, besides evidence being adduced, of, no electricity meter being installed for the purpose applied for, by one Jaswant Singh. However, the aforesaid evidence is grossly amiss, (iii) thereupon, on anvil of Ex.DW4/A, it is to be concluded, (iv) of, hence the year 1980, being the apt reckonable period, for, computing the commencements, of, the apt periods of limitation, (v) for the plaintiff, to, within 12 years therefrom, period whereof, is the mandated period, under, the apposite Section 65, of the Limitation Act, hence institute a suit for possession, (vi) thereupon, the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession, being instituted within 12 years, elapsing from 1980, renders it to fall within limitation. Even if, no issue appertaining to limitation, stood struck, by the learned trial Court, yet on an incisive reading of issue No.2, which stands extracted hereinafter: “2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file this suit? Even if, no issue appertaining to limitation, stood struck, by the learned trial Court, yet on an incisive reading of issue No.2, which stands extracted hereinafter: “2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file this suit? OPD.” does bear out an inference, (vii) of, its including also the therein the issue of limitation, especially when, unless, the interdicting embargo of estoppel reared against the plaintiffs, by the defendants, has also been cogently proven, especially, for ousting, the plaintiffs, from, seeking rendition, of a decree of possession, tenable ousters whereof, also obviously encompass an entwined therewith plea, of, the plaintiffs' suit being barred by limitation, “besides” reiteratedly pleas of estoppel AND, of, acquiescences acquire validity only upon the period of limitation prescribed, for instituting a suit, for possession, hence evidently expiring, whereas, hereat it has not evidently expired. (viii) Imperatively, the effect, of, estoppels' arising from conscious waiver and abandonments, of, known rights by the aggrieved, take their fullest effect, only upon the mandated apposite period of limitation, hence, standing evidently elasped. Consequently, omissions, if any, of the learned trial Court, to strike any direct issue appertaining, to the plaintiffs' suit, being barred by limitation, is, not a gross infirmity, nor non striking thereof vitiates, the trial of the suit, (ix) importantly, when for reasons aforestated, the afore extracted apposite issue No.2, takes within its ambit, also, for the reasons aforestated, the issue appertaining to the plaintiff's suit being barred by limitation. Moreover, when thereupon no apparent prejudice has been demonstrably visited upon the defendants, rather with theirs during the trial of the suit, being evidently aware of its non striking, thereupon, they are estopped to espouse before this Court, that, non strikings thereof, hence, prejudicing their rights. 9. Moreover, when thereupon no apparent prejudice has been demonstrably visited upon the defendants, rather with theirs during the trial of the suit, being evidently aware of its non striking, thereupon, they are estopped to espouse before this Court, that, non strikings thereof, hence, prejudicing their rights. 9. Be that as it may, the counsel for the defendants has contended with much force before this Court that the concurrent findings, rendered upon issue No.2, warranting vindication by this Court, given, the apparent fact, of the suit property neither adjoining nor abutting, the properties of the defendants, rather it being located at some distance therefrom, hence, (a)with the defendants openly and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs' raising construction thereon; (b) AND with theirs construction, as evident, from Ex.DW4/A, being raised in the year 1980; (c) thereupon, the inevitable inference accruable therefrom, is of the plaintiffs', consciously abandoning besides waiving their claims vis-a-vis the suit land and also theirs hence standing estopped, to rear the suit against them, for seeking rendition of a decree for possession. However, the aforesaid plea is not acceptable to this Court, given this Court concluding that, all conscious, awakened waivers and abandonments, of, plaintiffs' claim qua the suit kahsra numbers, yet not eroding their rights, to seek reclamation of its possession, unless, the plaintiffs' suit was instituted beyond the prescribed period, of, limitation. Contrarily, with this court concluding, of, the plaintiffs' suit, being, within limitation, thereupon, all the awakened abandonments and waivers of claims, by the plaintiffs vis-a-vis the suit khasra numbers, would work, no benefits vis-a-vis the defendants, for theirs barring the plaintiffs, the recorded true owners of the suit khasra number, to seek a decree for possession of the suit khasra number. 10. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court being not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned Courts below excluding germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and against the defendants/respondents 11. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the concurrent judgments and decree rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and against the defendants/respondents 11. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the concurrent judgments and decree rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside. In sequel the suit of the plaintiff is decreed AND the defendants are directed to handover vacant possession of the suit land measuring 2 kanals and as depicted in site plan Ex.P-1 being part of land measuring 3 kanals, 2 marlas, bearing Khewat No.513 min, Khatauni No.862 min, Khasra No.1747, situated in village Dharampur and District Una, H.P. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.