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 rendition, of, a decree for declaration, qua the suit khasra number(s), was, hence decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming therein that the plaintiff is owner to the extent of half of the suit land comprised in Khata No.74, Khatauni No.172 to 177, Khasra Nos. 54, 56, 8, 10/1, 20, 61, 65, 22, 6, 7, 9, 10, 19, 21, 23, 63, 64, 31, 32, 36, 53, 55, 30, 57, 24, 25, 29, measuring 1-83-28 HM, which comes to 0-91.64 HM, situated in Mohal and Mauza Nadholi, Tehsil Nurpor, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), as the land was earlier owned by his father who was in its possession. However, no final partition so far had taken place. It has been pleaded that his father never effect sale in favour of Mirchu and Moti and remained in possession of the suit land to the extent of ½ share as co-owner. When the consolidation proceedings were being conducted in the year 1982 in the area, he came to know that on the basis of mutation on 20.02.1943, his share had been mutated in the name of Mirchu and Moti, whereas, no such sale was ever effected by his father. On coming to know, of these wrong entries, he enquired about the matter and when his plea was accepted by the revenue agency the present suit was filed claiming that the entries in the record of rights are wrong and is entitled for half of the suit land and the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, it is averred that the father of the plaintiff Nanku and his co-sharer Sant Ram had sold their shares which was mutated in the name of Mirchu and Mali on 20.02.1943 vide mutation No.161. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, it is averred that the father of the plaintiff Nanku and his co-sharer Sant Ram had sold their shares which was mutated in the name of Mirchu and Mali on 20.02.1943 vide mutation No.161. The sale on behalf of Sant Ram and Hira who were not heard of for the last more than 15 years were excluded at the time of mutation, since the sale and mutation and suit land is coming in possession of the defendants and the share of the plaintiff has been reduced to 162/972 share out of the total suit land. It has also been averred that the suit is hopelessly time barred since it has been filed after more than 50 years from date of the attestation of mutation. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement, and, re-affirmed, and, re-asserted 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 plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the name of defendant No.1 is wrongly recorded as co-sharer in the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent inunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit? OPD. 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the latter Court, hence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant No.1/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 No.1/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 12.07.2006, 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 question of law:- 1. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 12.07.2006, 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 question of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the two Courts below that Nanku had not sold any part of his one half share in the suit land in favour of Mirchu and Mali is not based on correct appreciation of evidence and is perverse? Substantial question of Law No.: 8. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has vehemently argued before this Court, by placing reliance, (a) upon, Ex. D-1, exhibit whereof is a copy of the abstract, of, rojnamacha prepared, by the patwari concerned, wherein echoings, occur of one Mirchu purchasing a portion of the suit land, from, one Mali; (b) also by his placing reliance, upon, Ex. D-2, exhibit whereof, is, a copy of rojnamacha rapat prepared, by the Patwari concerned, with a revelation occurring therein, of, a portion of the suit property being alienated by Sant, Sadhu, Hiru and Nanku vis-a-vis one Mirchu, (c) qua hence when in consonance therewith, there ex facie rather occurred, an accretion in the apt shareholdings, of, the defendant/appellant concerned, and, also a concomitant diminution, in the shareholdings, of, the plaintiff, vis-a-vis the undivided suit property, (d) thereupon, the concurrent judgments and decrees pronounced, by the learned Courts below, qua the plaintiff being entitled, to, ½ share in the undivided suit property, hence, wanting in legal strength. 9. The aforesaid submission addressed, before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing, for the appellant is repelled by (i) an admission occurring in the cross-examination of DW-2, with an echoing therein, of, one Nanku holding ½ share, as, owner vis-a-vis the undivided suit property; (ii) any sanctity, as, concerted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, to be imputed to Ex. D-1, and, to D-2, is apparently, shred of its efficacy, upon, a conjoint reading of aforesaid exhibits with Ex.P-4, latter exhibit whereof is an apposite order, whereunder, the apt mutation stood attested. The apposite order attesting the apt mutation, as, borne in Ex.P-4 was recorded on 20.2.1943, whereas, Ex.D-1, and, Ex. D-2, stood recorded prior thereto, inasmuch as, respectively, on 12.11.1942, and, on 9.11.1942. Since, the recitals, borne in Ex.D-1, and, in Ex. The apposite order attesting the apt mutation, as, borne in Ex.P-4 was recorded on 20.2.1943, whereas, Ex.D-1, and, Ex. D-2, stood recorded prior thereto, inasmuch as, respectively, on 12.11.1942, and, on 9.11.1942. Since, the recitals, borne in Ex.D-1, and, in Ex. D-2 were recorded, prior to the recording, of, the apposite mutation, borne in Ex.P-4, (iii) thereupon, with the apposite order of mutation, borne in Ex.P-4, hence, enjoying a higher degree of solemnity besides evidentiary vigour vis-a-vis any apposite purported evidentiary worth enjoyed respectively, by EX.D-1, and, by Ex.D-2, (iv) and its hence also constituting the apposite order, whereto a presumption of truth, is attractable, besides whereunder, the apt vestment of title vis-a-vis the suit land upon Mirchu, is rather construable to be hence purportedly validly made, (v) whereas, apparently, its making a disclosure, of, it being recorded in the absence of one Sadhu, and, of one Hiru, whereto whose estate, one Mirchu staked a claim, given the formers' hence alienating vis-a-vis him, their share in the undivided suit property, (vi) thereupon, upon a reading, of, Ex.P-4, it evidently rather surging forth, of it, being rather rendered ex-parte, thereupon, it is per se rendered inefficacious, (vii) and, hence, also a concomitant inference is spurred of any disclosure(s), as, unilaterally, made before the Patwari concerned, by one Mirchu, disclosure(s) whereof respectively, are, borne in Ex.D-1, and, in Ex. D-2 qua, hence, any oral sale being made visa- vis Mirchu, by, one Sadhu, and, by one Hiru, rather, lacking, both in tenacity and probative vigour, (viii) rather it being, reiteratedly inferable, of both Ex.D-1, and, Ex. D- 2, being inefficaciously prepared, and, fortifyingly no reliance being imputable thereon. (ix) Conspicuously, with the relevant aforesaid echoings, borne in Ex.P-4, remaining unshred of their efficacies, by adduction, of, cogent material, in, displacement thereof, thereupon, rendering them, to enjoy conclusivities. Consequently, any espousal, on anvil thereof qua hence, of, any addition in the share(s), of, Mirchu vis-a-vis the undivided suit property hence occurring, and, concomitantly, rather the share of the plaintiff, in, the undivided suit property, being hence diminished, is not, acceptable nor it can be said that the plaintiff is not entitled, to, ½ share in the undivided suit property. 10. 10. Even though, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has placed reliance, upon, certain sale deeds, to contend that owing to sale(s) thereunder, of, part, of, the suit land, thereupon, the apposite accretion(s), and, concomitant diminution(s) vis-a-vis the suit property, in the respective shareholding(s) of the plaintiff, and, of, the defendant, rather obviously occurring. However, the aforesaid submission is rendered rudderless, in the apparent face, of, the vendor(s) therein, not, being either Hiru or Sadhu, rather, vendors thereof, being person(s), other than Hiru and Sadhu. 11. 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 question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the appellant/defendant. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both 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.