JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs/respondents herein (for short the plaintiffs), suit for, rendition of a declaratory decree, as well as, a decree for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra Number 1132/277, rather stood dismissed by the learned trial Court, however, on, an appeal cast therefrom, by the aggrieved plaintiffs before the learned first appellate Court, the latter reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, and, obviously decreed, the plaintiffs' hence the afore espoused relief. 2. The aggrieved therefrom, the defendants, hence rear the instant RSA, wherefrom, they strive to beget reversal, of, the impugned verdict. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs alongwith proforma defendants No. 9 to 18 were owners in possession of the suit land of Khasra No. 1132/277 measuring 10 marlas situated in village Bailag (for short "suit land"). However defendant No.1 and late Sh. Santa predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 2 to 8 in collusion with the revenue staff got attested mutations of exchange with regard to the suit land in absence of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants and without any notice to them whereas plaintiffs and proforma defendants have never agreed to exchange the land with defendant No.1 and Sh. Santa. The whole process of attestation of mutation was collusive, fraudulent and illegal. Wrong mutation came to their notice in January 1996 when defendants No. 3 and 4 started raising forcible construction on the suit land. Subsequently the suit land during consolidation was merged with the land of khasra No. 244 and 245 of the defendants over a portion of the suit land, the defendants raised forcible construction after dispossessing the plaintiff in February 1996. Wrong mutations of the suit land in favour of the defendants would not affect their right title and interest. 4. Defendants No.1 to 8 in their written-statements claimed themselves to be owner in possession of the suit land and their possession was reaffirmed during consolidation. They also averred that they are owners of the suit land by way of construction of Abadies, which is in existence since time immemorial. In alternative, they claimed that they have acquired title by way of adverse possession of the suit land in case entires qua the suit land were held against the interest of the defendants. The objections qua cause of action estoppal, non-joinder of necessary parties and valuation were also raised. 5. In alternative, they claimed that they have acquired title by way of adverse possession of the suit land in case entires qua the suit land were held against the interest of the defendants. The objections qua cause of action estoppal, non-joinder of necessary parties and valuation were also raised. 5. Proforma defendants No. 9 to 18 have admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. 6. In replication, the plaintiffs reasserted their case. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the mutation Nos. 347 and 348 dated 13.8.1997 are void and illegal, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their own act and conduct? OPD 5. Whether the defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OP Parties. 8. Relief. 8. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit, of, the plaintiffs. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiffs, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 9. Now the defendants, 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 27.12.2004, this Court, admitted the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the first Appellate Court erred in treating the suit of the plaintiff to be within the period of limitation? 2. Whether the findings of the first Appellate Court are result of misreading of oral of documentary evidence particularly the admissions of the plaintiff in Exts. P3 and P4 and entry in Jamabandi Ex. P6? Substantial questions of law:- 10. The learned first appellate Court, had depended, upon mutations respectively borne in Ex. P-3, and, in Ex. 2. Whether the findings of the first Appellate Court are result of misreading of oral of documentary evidence particularly the admissions of the plaintiff in Exts. P3 and P4 and entry in Jamabandi Ex. P6? Substantial questions of law:- 10. The learned first appellate Court, had depended, upon mutations respectively borne in Ex. P-3, and, in Ex. P-4, wherethrough mutations of exchange, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra Numbers, hence stood attested, on anvil, of it hence making further dependence(s), upon, the testification rendered, by one Sarwan Singh, who appeared, in the witness box, as, PW-1, and, therein echoed qua the misal hakiyat appertaining, to the suit property, and, prepared in the year 1910-11, making, no disclosures, qua the predecessor in interest of defendants No. 2 to 8, Sarwan, and, defendant No.1, being recorded therein, to be owners of the contentious suit land, (i) and, therefrom the learned first appellate Court hence recorded a conclusion qua the defendants, not, holding any valid title, in the suit khasra numbers, and, thereupon the orders attesting mutation, of, exchange, and, respectively borne in Ex. P-3 and in P-4, were, concluding rather to be holding no legal sanctity. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants herein, has contended, with much vigour before this Court (i) qua the dependence made by the learned first appellate Court, upon, the testification rendered by PW-1, being a gross misdependence, (ii) as since 2010-2011, upto, the date of attestation of mutations of exchange, respectively borne in Ex. P-3 and in P-4, no records being produced by PW-1, wherein reflections are borne, for succoring the factum qua the defendants, in contemporaneity vis-a-vis the attestation of mutations, of, exchange, as respectively borne, in Ex. P-3, and, in Ex. P-4 rather not holding valid, subsisting title, in the contentious suit khasra numbers. The afore contention addressed before this Court, is, grossly misfounded, as (a) with the plaintiffs, through, PW-1 adducing discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, the apposite contentious issue, emerging inter-se the contesting litigants (b) and with during the course of his rendering his testification, before the learned trial Court, his though, not producing, the, records hence appertaining to the interregnum, since 2020-2011 upto, the attestation of mutations of exchange, respectively borne in Ex. P-3, and, in Ex. P-3, and, in Ex. P-4, rather also not carrying forward, the defendants' espousal, (c) that hence, in, the afore interregnum, there were, hence reflections in the revenue records, rather supportive of the defendants, qua theirs holding subsisting, and, valid tile, for, therethrough theirs validating, the mutations of exchange, (d) conspicuously with PW-1, in his cross-examination, rather voicing qua the afore records, remaining unrequisitioned by him. 12. The corollary thereof, is, when the plaintiffs, have through PW-1 hence adduced the apt discharging evidence, vis-avis, the contentious issue, (i) thereupon the onus shifted, upon, the defendants, to, during the stage of their adducing, their evidence, theirs hence, making vigorous strivings, for, therethroughs rather theirs belying the afore testification, of, PW-1 or for succoring their espousal, (i) strivings whereof, were comprised in theirs' eliciting from the records concerned, hence evidence, displaying qua their afore propagation, being meritworthy, as well as amenable for acceptance, and, also for belying, the testification rendered by PW-1, whereon hence dependence, was made, by the learned first appellate Court, hence, for reversing the verdict recorded, by the learned trial Judge, wherethrough, he non-suited the plaintiff. Consequently, since the afore endeavors remained unstrived, and, also when hence the onus, after, completion of the plaintiffs evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore factum, rather shifted upon the defendants, and, when it remained visibly undischarged, thereupon, the, inevitable sequel thereof, (i) is, that the testification rendered by PW-1, rather holding both tenacity, and, vigour and dehors, the participation, of both the contesting parties, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the recording, of, the apt mutations respectively borne in Ex. P-3, and, in Ex.P-4, both being invalidly drawn, as thereat the defendants held no valid subsisting title, to, make any valid mutations, of, exchange, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra nos. 13. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing, for the defendants, has made a vigorous submission, before this Court that the suit, is outside, the prescribed period of limitation, hence to be computed from 1987, whereat, the requisite mutations, were attested, (i) and, hence also when the afore factum, stood purportedly pleaded, in their written-statement furnished to the plaint, (ii) hence it was imperative for the learned trial Court, to, strike an issue, vis-a-vis, the suit being barred, by limitation, (iii) whereas, non-striking of the afore issue hence vitiating the trial, of, the suit. However the afore espousal is misfounded, as a reading, of the written-statement, instituted to the plaint, does not, make any unfoldings qua the afore fact being pleaded rather the defendants pleading qua theirs acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit land rather by adverse possession besides when DW-1, one Prakash Chand, while stepping into the witness box, has, in consonance with the averments, cast in the plaint, qua, the cause of action, erupting in February 1996, rather rendered echoings, (i) thereupon the inference, is, qua thereupon even dehors, the factum, vis-a-vis, the prime fact of the suit, being outside the period of limitation, rather purportedly computable from 1987, and, wherat the relevant mutations of exchange, hence stood attested, qua, rather thereat, the, apt period of limitation, hence not commencing, (ii) contrarily its' commencing, from the phase, of, the afore emerging, and, admitted cause of action, and, when the suit for declaration, and, for possession hence stands instituted, within the requisite period, of limitation, to be computed from 1996, thereupon the plaintiffs' suit, is within, the ambit, of, the apt prescribed period, of, limitation. 14. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.