JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit No. 15/1 of 1992, instituted before the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P, for, rendition of a declaratory decree, and, for rendition, of, a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, against the defendants, stood partly decreed, in as much, as, (i) the plaintiff was declared to be entitled, for, partition of the suit land measuring 5 biswas, comprised in Khasra No. 144, Khata/Khatoni No. 93/185, situated in village Ghumarwin, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., (ii) and, also the further espoused relief qua the defendants being restrained, from, raising construction, upon, the suit land, till the partition of the suit land by the competent Court of law, hence stood accorded. 2. However, the espoused relief of possession, was, declined, on, anvil qua it being grantable, only upon, the suit land becoming validly dismembered by metes and bounds, hence, by the competent Court of law. 3. The defendants No.1 and 2, being aggrieved therefrom instituted Civil Appeal No. 107/13 of 2004/1999, and, also the plaintiff, being aggrieved by declining to him, the, relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, till dismemberment, of, the suit land, occurs by metes and bounds, and, also his becoming aggrieved, against, the declining of the relief of possession, also instituted Civil Appeal No. 106/13 of 2004/1993, before the Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., and, both the aforesaid appeals, were decided, under a common verdict, recorded on 18.11.2005, (i) where through(s) the learned first Appellate Court after quashing the afore rendition, of, decree(s), vis-a-vis the plaintiff, (ii) had also pronounced a preliminary decree, of partition, with a declaration qua the plaintiff, being the joint owner in possession, of ½ share of the suit land, measuring 0.5 Biswas, comprised in Khasra No. 144, Khata/khatoni No. 93/185, situated in village Ghumarwin, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P, (iii) and, the defendants No.1 and 2, were declared to be joint owners in possession, of, 9/20 shares, and, defendant No.3 was declared to be owner, in possession of 1/20 shares, in, the suit land. Further there onwards the plaintiff was declared, to be entitled, for, exclusive possession, of, ½ share of the suit land, through, apt partition through metes and bounds, and, the mode of partition was directed to be prepared, by, the Local Commissioner, to be appointed with the consent, of, the parties, by, the learned lower Court. 4. Defendants No. 1 and 2/appellants herein, being aggrieved therefrom, hence, through the instant RSAs, preferred before this Court, strives to beget reversal thereof. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners in khasra No. 144, Khata/Khatoni No. 94/185, situated in village Ghumarwin, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (for short ?suit land?). The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein (for short ?the plaintiff?) was co-owner in possession of ½ share of the suit land. The suit land was purchased by the plaintiff and his sister Krishani Devi. Defendants No.1 and 2/appellants herein (for short defendants No.1 and 2) inherited share of Smt. Krishani Devi, whereas defendant No. 3/respondent No.2 herein had purchased portion of the suit land from Smt. Krishani Devi. Shyam Lal son of Smt. Krishani Devi had also expired and his share was inherited by defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff and defendants had constructed a two storeyed house of two rooms in each storey on the suit land. The plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 and their ancestors had also lived in the house in question situated on the suit land. The plaintiff had joined defense service and he used to visit home after one year. However, the plaintiff and Smt. Krishani Devi constructed another house in the vacant portion of the suit land. On 15.1.1992 when the plaintiff came on leave he came to know that the defendants had dismantled the old house and had started construction of a new house. The plaintiff prayed that he was entitled for separate possession of his ½ share in the suit land by partition. The plaintiff had sought a decree for declaration that he was entitled for separate possession of his ½ share of the suit land by way of partition from front side to back alongwith structure raised in the suit land in lieu of the material of the old dismantled house etc and in the alternative for possession of his ½ share of the suit land after demolishing the structure raised thereon. 6. 6. The defendants by filing written-statement, contested the suit by taking preliminary objections qua suit being not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and the plaintiff being estopped from filing the suit. On merits, it stands averred that the plaintiff was not party with Smt. Krishani Devi in purchasing the suit land nor he had participated in construction of the house. The house was constructed only by Smt. Krishani Devi. The plaintiff never lived with Smt. Krishani Devi in the house constructed on the suit land. The plaintiff had made only plastering work etc. in one room, which was left in complete. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are owners in possession of the suit land except a portion which was sold to defendant No.3 by the husband of defendant No.1. Defendants have also claimed that they had become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Thus the plaintiff was not entitled for separate possession of the suit land and the structure thereon by way of partition. 7. No replication was sought to be filed by the plaintiff. 8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is co-owner in possession of the suit land, if so, what are their share? OPP 2. Whether the suit not properly assessed for the jurisdiction and Court fee as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit from his conduct and deeds? OPD 3-A Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed? OPP 3-B Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the recovery of mesne profits as alleged, if so to what amounts? OPP 4-A Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land property by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPD 5. Relief. 9. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, partly decreed the plaintiff's suit. OPP 4-A Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land property by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPD 5. Relief. 9. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, partly decreed the plaintiff's suit. In the appeal(s) preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff, as well, as the defendants, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court, while setting aside the verdict recorded, by the learned trial Court, had also pronounced a preliminary decree, of partition, with a declaration qua the plaintiff, being the joint owner in possession, of ½ share of the suit land, measuring 0.5 Biswas, comprised in Khasra No. 144, Khata/khatoni No. 93/185, situated in village Ghumarwin, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P, (iii) and, the defendants No.1 and 2, were declared to be joint owners in possession, of, 9/20 shares, and, defendant No.3 was declared to be owner, in possession of 1/20 shares, in, the suit land. Further there onwards the plaintiff was declared, to be entitled, for, exclusive possession, of, ½ share of the suit land, through, apt partition through metes and bounds, and, the mode of partition was directed to be prepared, by, the Local Commissioner, to be appointed with the consent, of, the parties, by, the learned lower Court. 10. Now defendants No. 1 and 2/appellants herein, being aggrieved there from, hence, through the instant RSAs, preferred before this Court, strives to beget reversal thereof. 11. When the appeal(s) came up for admission, on 18.6.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal(s), on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the joint ownership of the parties to the land reflected in the revenue record, was sufficient to raise presumption of joint ownership over the structure standing on the suit land, which was proved to have been raised by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants exclusively and without any objection and contribution from the plaintiff? Have not both the Courts below exceeded their jurisdiction in granting the decree for partition of the house/structure by meets and bounds without appreciating the correct legal position. 2. Whether both the Courts below have committed grave procedural illegality and acted with material illegality and irregularity in not determining the value of the suit for the purpose of the Court fee and jurisdiction of the reliefs claimed? 2. Whether both the Courts below have committed grave procedural illegality and acted with material illegality and irregularity in not determining the value of the suit for the purpose of the Court fee and jurisdiction of the reliefs claimed? Was not it incumbent of the Courts below to have at the first instance determined the market value of the suit property on which the plaintiff was required to pay ad-velorum court fee, which was essential for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court as well as Appellate Court? 3. Whether the findings of both the Courts below on Issue No. 4-A whereby the defendants-appellants asserted their exclusive title to the suit property by way of adverse possession have been negatived? Has not there been sheer misreading of pleadings oral and documentary evidence and application of correct principles of law. Substantial questions of law:- 12. Since, common questions of law in both the appeals arise, for, determination, hence both are liable to be disposed of, under, a common verdict being pronounced thereon. 13. Uncontroverdly the construction of a house, upon, the suit land, is, raised by one Shaym Lal, who, is related to co-defendant No.1 as, her husband, and, to co-defendant No. 2, as, her father. 14. Even though, the revenue entries appertaining, to, the suit land, and, embodied in the jamabandi, comprised in Ex.PA, (a) unfold(s) that the suit land is jointly owned, and, possessed, by the contesting litigants, (b) however, for rebutting or dislodging, the, presumption of truth, as, carried by the afore reflections, the, contesting defendants had reared a contention in the written-statement, qua, their acquiring title thereto, by adverse possession, and, had also strived, to, hence there through rather unsettle the claim of the plaintiff, to, seek dismemberment of the jointly recorded suit land, by, metes and bounds. However, the afore reared contention, is, highly fanciful, and, also is pretextual, and, deserves rejection as aptly done, by the both the Courts below, given (a) the afore reared contention, without the requisite animus possidendi, and also without it being averred, to commence with specific delineation, in time, though peremptorily required, nor, also when any evidence in concurrence therewith, stands adduced (b) besides when each of the recorded co-owners of the suit land, enjoys unity of title, and, of community of possession, vis-a-vis, every inch thereof, (c) dehors exclusivity of possession, if any, of the co-owners concerned, and, also when the plea of ouster reared by the co-owners concerned, anchored upon theirs holding exclusive possession of the suit land, and, qua, his/their there through, hence, completely ousting, the, participation, of, other co-owners, rather not holding physical possession, of, the undivided suit land, hence, for, holding validity also does require, the, strictest compliance, with, the law appertaining therewith (d) comprised, in, pleadings vis-a-vis their holding possession, with, an active animus possidendi hence sparked, from, precisely delineated phase(s), of, times, and, it, continuing, upto, the institution of the suit, (e) whereas the afore precisions with time, of, defendants No.1 and 2, commencing their possession, and, with an animus possidendi, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, also hence there through completely ousting, the, recorded co-owners, from, enjoyments of, the, jointly recorded suit land, remain(s) unechoed, in, the apt written-statement, nor concurrent evidence therewith stands adduced, (f) thereupon, the other recorded co-owners, though, not holding any exclusive possession of the suit land, cannot be either barred, to, claim rendition, of, a decree of possession, and, also cannot be barred to claim rendition, of, a decree of partition, (g) and, thereafter they are rather facilitated to ensure, the, drawing up, of, a mode of partition, for, in consonance therewith, hence valid dismemberment(s) of the suit land, rather occurring. Consequently the entries embodied in Ex. PA are enjoined, to be revered, and, thereupon prima-facie, all the recorded co-owners are entitled, to, rendition of a preliminary decree, of, partition being made, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, also prima-facie, as, aptly ordered, by the learned first Appellate Court, hence after the preparation, of, an consensual mode of partition, they are entitled, in concurrence therewith, for, a valid complete dismemberment, of, the suit land. 15. 15. Since this Court, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, makes a conclusion, that, the principle of owelty warrants qua deference being meted thereto, (a) thereupon it would not be apt and befitting for this Court, to, proceed to mete any computation, vis-a-vis, the substantial question, of, law appertaining, to, the suit land being not properly valued, for, the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, (b) in as much as, the plaintiff's suit being enjoined, to be valued, in commensuration, vis-a-vis, the market value of their shares in the suit land, and, also in consonance therewith advoleram Court fee, being, enjoined to be affixed thereon. 16. 16. Be that as it may, the preeminent reason hence swaying this Court to, upon, adoption, of, the principle of owelty, rather compute monetary compensation, vis-a-vis, the defendants concerned, and, when the afore principle of owelty, adoption whereof, enjoins adherence being meted thereto, only upon, certain exigent, and, special circumstances, hence precluding the making of an order, for, ensuring a valid complete dismemberment of the suit land, hence occurring, (i) thereupon, this Court after partly setting aside, the, operative portion, of the, verdict pronounced by the learned first appellate Court, upon, the afore Civil Appeals, (ii) where through, after rendition, of, a preliminary decree, of, partition, by the learned first appellate Court, vis-a-vis, the contesting litigants, it also had, ordered for drawing, of, a consensual mode, of, partition, and, thereafter in tandem therewith the apt dismemberment, of, the suit land was ordered (iii) hence, this Court after noticing, the, hereinafter alluded hence exigent and critical circumstances, rather forbidding adherence, being meted to the afore operative portion, of, the verdict recorded by the learned first appellate Court, rather adopts the principle of owelity, or, the principle of monetary compensation, being meted, to the plaintiff/defendant concerned (a) exigent cause(s) whereof are comprised in admission by the defendants concerned, in, the written-statement, that, the construction of the house, upon, the suit land occurring 12 years prior to the institution, of, the suit (b) no evidence existing on record, qua, during the time/phase when the defendants concerned proceeded to raise construction, upon, the suit land, the plaintiff ensuring the stalling of construction raised by the defendants concerned, upon, the suit land, through, his recoursing all the available legal mechanisms, (c) the effect of afore conclusion, does concomitantly, stall and estop him, to, contend that the construction, of, the house, upon, the suit land, and, as made by the defendants concerned, being without his consent, (d) contrarily, an inference is sparked, qua, the plaintiff acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the raising of a construction, by the defendants, dehors this Court rebutting the latter's contention qua their acquiring title, to, the undivided suit land, through, adverse possession, and, the further concomitant thereof sequel is qua the plaintiff also abandoning or waiving, his, rights in the suit land, (e) and, though the effect of the afore inference would not beget, the, making, of any inference therefrom qua the entries borne in Ex. PA, reflecting the suit land, being jointly owned, and, possessed, by the contesting parties, becoming belittled or under whelmed, (f) nonetheless the effect thereof is qua, upon, a preliminary decree of partition, being meted, the, fullest deference, and, also upon it being carried forward, through, an order being made for a consensual mode of partition, being drawn, and, thereafter in concurrence therewith, the, suit land begetting dismemberment, rather would definitely ensure hardships being encumbered, upon, the defendants, (g) also, would beget, the, ill causality, and, also ill consequences, of, injustice being caused upon the defendants concerned, besides the further, ill, consequences, will ensue qua there through, the, plaintiff without expending any money, upon, the suit land, his becoming unjustly enriched. 17. In sequel, by, adopting the principle of owelity, hence, this Court is constrained, to, direct for computation of monetary compensation, vis-a-vis, the defendants No.1 and 2, (i) thereupon, this Court deems it fit, that in commensuration, with the market value, of, the share of the plaintiff, and, of co-defendant No.3, in, the suit land, would, rather comprise the apt owelty/the apt monetary compensation, being visited upon them, and hence this Court orders, that, the learned trial Court shall after eliciting, from the local commissioner concerned, a, report vis-a-vis, the market value, of, the share of the plaintiff, and, of co-defendant No.3, in the suit land, shall, make in proportions, vis-a-vis, the share of the afore(s), in, the suit land, hence, computation(s), and, disbursement(s), of, monetary compensation, to them, emphatically within three months hereafter. 18. In view of the above, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly. The pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25/x/2019, and, the latter shall within two months, comply with the orders made upon him. Records be sent back.