JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit bearing No. 91/87, preferred before the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No. II, Una, District Una, H.P., for, rendition of a decree, for, setting aside mutation attested, on, 24.10.1979, and, for rendition, of, a declaratory decree, vis-a-vis, theirs being declared owners in possession, vis-a-vis, the suit land, stood partly decreed, and, partly dismissed, in as much, as, the plaintiffs were declared, as, owners in possession of the old khasra No. 185 corresponding, to, new khasra Nos.412, 413, 416 and 417, and, were also declared to be owners of old khasra No. 307, corresponding to new khasra Nos.568, 569, 570, 571, 608, 609, 610, 616 and 618, situated in village Lakhroon, Tappa Muchhali, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, and, thereafter, the defendants were also directed, to, handover, the, vacant possession of old khasra No. 307, to, the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs being aggrieved therefrom instituted, a, Civil appeal No. 39 of 2002, and, defendants also being aggrieved therefrom hence instituted a Civil appeal No. 41 of 2002, before the learned District Judge, Una, H.P., and, both the afore appeals were decided, under, a common verdict, being recorded thereon, on, 9.6.2004, (i) where through, the plaintiffs' appeal, was partly allowed, and, defendants' cross appeal, stood dismissed, and, the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court was modified, in as much, as, (ii) the plaintiffs become declared to be owners, in possession, of, land comprised in old khasra No. 185 (new khasra No. 412,413,416 and 417), old khasra No. 307 (new khasra No. 568, 569,570,571,608,609,610,616,617 and 618, and, old khasra No. 273 (new khasra No. 601,603,647,655 and 656 situated in village Lakhroon, Tapa Muchhali, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P., (iii) and, the entry to the contrary, showing the name, of, defendant, upon, the aforementioned suit land, stood declared, to be null and void, and, the defendants, are, further restrained, from, interfering in any manner, over, the possession of the plaintiffs, qua, the suit land. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 29, Khatauni No. 31, Khasra Nos. 185 and 307 and half share in Khewat No. 61 min, Khatauni No. 191, khasra Nos. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 29, Khatauni No. 31, Khasra Nos. 185 and 307 and half share in Khewat No. 61 min, Khatauni No. 191, khasra Nos. 273, 310 and 317 as per jamabandi for the year 1981-82 situated in village Lakhroon, Tappa Muchhali, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, (for short ?the suit land?). On the basis of registered will of 20.3.1979 executed by Kirpa Ram, grand-father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and the consequential mutation No. 436 of 20.10.1979 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit land is void. In effective, with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner over the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land mearing 11 kanal 1 marlas was owned and possessed by Kirpa Ram, grandfather of the plaintiffs and father of defendant No.1 and said Kirpa Ram died in village Hatli on 27.4.1979. Sh. Kirpa Ram, during his life time on 20.3.1979 executed a will in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Jaswant Singh and Dhyan Singh and on the basis of the said will Kirpa Ram bequeathed his lands and house situated in village Lakhroonbelow the ?Sarak se Nichli? i.e. below the road of the plaintiffs whereas defendant No.1 was given land and houses above the road i.e. sarak se upparli. The other sons of Kirpa Ram, namely Jaswant Singh and Dhyan Singh were given land in village Hatli Patialian. The road dividing the property of the parties passes through khasra No. 272 and suit land is located, thus below the road. The defendant No.1 being an influential person, behind the back of the plaintiffs got attested mutation No. 436 dated 24.10.1979 wrongly in his favour whereas the land below the road has been bequeathed to the plaintiffs. Mutation No. 436 is wrong illegal and void. Emboldened by the wrong entries the defendant No.1 sold land measuring 3 kanal 6 marlas being half share out of the land measuring 6 kanal 12 marlas comprised in khasra No. 307 to defendants No. 2 to 4 vide sale deed of 21.1.1987. The said sale deed is a fictitious document and does not confer any title. Emboldened by the wrong entries the defendant No.1 sold land measuring 3 kanal 6 marlas being half share out of the land measuring 6 kanal 12 marlas comprised in khasra No. 307 to defendants No. 2 to 4 vide sale deed of 21.1.1987. The said sale deed is a fictitious document and does not confer any title. Now the defendants No.1 to are hurling threats of interference in the possession of the plaintiffs for the last one month. The defendants were asked to admit the claim of the plaintiff and to desist from interfering in their possession of the suit land but they declined to do so. Hence the suit. 4. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendants and defendant No.1 filed separate written-statement taking preliminary objections inter-alia the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the suit being time barred, estoppel, maintainability etc. Defendant No.1 admitted the factum of will dated 20.3.1979 but denied the plea taken by the plaintiffs regarding bequeathing of the suit property in their favour. The testator Kirpa Ram had bequeathed to the plaintiffs house property know as Rakkar Johr Wali over which the plaintiffs are in possession. The mutation has been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 in accordance with law and later on defendant No.1 has sold khasra No. 307 to defendants No. to 4 through registered sale deed for valuable consideration. Defendants No.2 to 4 are bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice after thorough enquiry on the basis of mutation and entry in the revenue record, as such are entitled to remain possession, as, owners. The defendants denied other averments made in the plaint. Defendants No. 2 to did not file any written-statement, and, were declared to be proceeded against ex-parte in the trial Court order of 20.6.1987. 5. In the replication, the plaintiffs have reiterated, and, reasserted the contents, as, enumerated in the plaint, and, have controverted, the, contention(s) raised, in, the written-statement(s). 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the impugned mutation is not in accordance with will dated 20.3.1979? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP 3. If issue No.2 is proved, whether the defendants No. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchaser for value of the land purchased by them? OPD 4. Whether the impugned mutation is not in accordance with will dated 20.3.1979? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP 3. If issue No.2 is proved, whether the defendants No. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchaser for value of the land purchased by them? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to sue? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5-A Whether the suit is within limitation period? OPP 5-B Whether the suit is property value for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 5-C Whether the plaintiff is estoped by his own act and conduct to file the suit? OPD 5-D Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced, before, the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, partly decreed and partly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the aggrieved, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court, while accepting the plaintiffs' appeal, and, while dismissing the cross appeal preferred, by the defendants, hence modified the judgment, and, decree, of, the trial Court. 8. The defendant No.1, being aggrieved therefrom hence, instituted the instant RSA before this Court, and, the plaintiff No.1, being aggrieved therefrom, also there within instituted, Cross objections No. 499 of 2004, before this Court. 9. When the appeal came, up for, admission, on 17.5.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the decree for possession in respect of the land in question could have been granted in favour of the respondents in view of their specific pleading that this land was in joint ownership and possession of the appellants-defendants and respondents/plaintiffs? 2. Whether the findings of the Courts below that the parties were not in separate ownership and possession of the land inherited by them under the Will of Kirpa ram are dehors the evidence on record? Substantial questions of law 10. The predecessor-in-interest of the contesting litigants, made a will embodied in Ex. PW-2/A, where through, he made a bequest, and, where through, he constituted, the, plaintiffs, as, his legatees, vis-a-vis, the apposite property occurring below the road, and, also there through, he, constituted, the, defendant No.1, as, his legatees, vis-a-vis, his estate, hence occurring above the road. 11. The predecessor-in-interest of the contesting litigants, made a will embodied in Ex. PW-2/A, where through, he made a bequest, and, where through, he constituted, the, plaintiffs, as, his legatees, vis-a-vis, the apposite property occurring below the road, and, also there through, he, constituted, the, defendant No.1, as, his legatees, vis-a-vis, his estate, hence occurring above the road. 11. Consequently, the entire lis is rested, upon, the occurrence(s), in, the revenue records, and, appertaining to estate, of, the deceased testator hence bearing conformity therewith, and, therefrom it is to be obviously fathomed, vis-a-vis, the reflected therein lands occurring above the road, or, below the road, (a) for, thereafter making hence determination(s), vis-a-vis, the defendant No.1, or, the plaintiffs, holding the apt empowerment, to, claim a valid right, of, theirs, hence becoming owners in possession thereof, and, also thereafter, for, determining whether the apposite mutation attested, on, 24.10.1979, becoming validly attested. 12. For resting the afore conundrum hence besetting this Court, an allusion is to be made, vis-a-vis, an affirmative, and, conclusive order being made, upon, an application, cast under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, read with Section 151 CPC, application whereof, stood instituted, before the learned first appellate Court, during, the pendency, of, the afore-stated Civil Appeals, (a) and, therein reflections are cast vis-a-vis khasra No. 411,426, 428, 424, 425, 69, 447, 652, 661, 657 and 658 standing reflected, as, ?Gair Mumkin Sadak? (b) and the afore reflections, are, in concurrence with the there along with appended jamabandi Ex. PC, and, appertaining to the year 1996-97, (c) and, also where along with jamabandi bearing Ex. P-14, stood appended, and, it makes reflections, vis-a-vis, old khasra No. 273, the corresponding thereto new assigned khasra numbers, being 601, 603, 647, 655, 654, and, besides thereto, the, afore jamabandi also denotes, vis-a-vis, old Khasra No. 310, the, newly assigned thereto khasra numbers being 583, 589, 591, 592, (d) and, vis-a-vis, old khasra no. 317, the newly assigned thereto khasra numbers being 564 and 565. Conspicuously, the plaintiffs, had laid a claim, to, old khasra No. 273, 310, 317, on, anvil of theirs' occurring below, the ?Gair Mumkin Sadak?, and, hence with theirs being constituted legatees qua therewith, hence, the order of mutation, being enjoined, to be corrected. Meeting(s), of, credence thereto, for the relevant purpose, is, befitting, as, the reflections, cast therein, are not rebutted through adduction of potent evidence. 13. Meeting(s), of, credence thereto, for the relevant purpose, is, befitting, as, the reflections, cast therein, are not rebutted through adduction of potent evidence. 13. However, the plaintiffs also apart therefrom, laid a claim qua khasra No. 273 and 310, on, anvil of the afore khasra numbers, rather falling below the road, and, hence theirs being legatees thereof, and, also theirs holding, a, valid title thereof hence as owners, in, possession. 14. Nonetheless, the afore made espousal of the plaintiffs is amenable for rejection, (i) as, a perusal of copy of Shajra Ex. P-12, and, also a perusal of copy of Aks Musavi, embodied in Ex. P-19, does not bear out, the, espousal of the plaintiffs, vis-a-vis, from old khasra No. 317, hence new khasra Nos. 564, and, Khasra No. 565 being carved, (ii) as reiteratedly theirs' qua therewith claim would be construed, to be validly made, upon, the afore new khasra Nos. 564 and 565, being precisely, depicted in Sajra Ex. P-12, to be falling below the ?Gair Mumkin Sadak?, and, whereas the afore depiction is grossly amiss therein, (iii) besides further there onwards, the, further claim of the plaintiffs, vis-a-vis, old khasra No. 310, whereto hence, the newly assigned khasra Nos. 583, 589,591,592, is, also an invalid claim, and, warrants its rejections, as, Ex. P-12, does not, make, any, disclosure, vis-a-vis, the afore khasra numbers falling, below the road, (iv) and, yet, the, further espousal of the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, khasra Nos. 601, 603, 647, 655 and 654, being the newly assigned khasra numbers qua old khasra number No. 273, is however accepted, as, a perusal of Ex. P-12, rather makes vivid echoings, vis-a-vis, the afore khasra numbers, falling below, the road, and where through, hence the plaintiffs, would, in concurrence with the testamentary disposition, be entitled to claim a relief, vis-a-vis, theirs being validly constituted legatees qua therewith. The afore reflections in the afore exhibit enjoy an aura, of, solemnity given no potent evidence, for, denuding, the reflections carried therein becoming adduced. 15. Consequently the claim of the defendants, vis-a-vis, their holding right of ownership, vis-a-vis, old khasra No. 273 does concomitantly, hence warrant rejection. 16. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the present appeal is dismissed, and, the impugned verdict, is, maintained, and, affirmed, and, consequently, the instant RSA, and, also, the, cross objections are dismissed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 16. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the present appeal is dismissed, and, the impugned verdict, is, maintained, and, affirmed, and, consequently, the instant RSA, and, also, the, cross objections are dismissed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back. No costs.