JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Both the learned courts below, hence, decreed the plaintiffs' suit for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, the defendant becoming aggrieved therefrom, hence, assail, the, concurrent verdicts made against him, through, his instituting the extant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court. 2. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 22.05.2009, 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 questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties and drawing wrong inferences from the facts proved on record, particularly, the revenue record i.e. Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3, Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-6 to which presumption of truth attached as also statements of Rai Singh and Bir Singh? 2. Whether in view of the fact that the appellant was in settled possession of the property and had planted orchard and the land was recorded bagicha barani faldar, the decree for actual possession of the property against the appellant who was on the showing of the plaintiff a co-sharer could have been passed? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 3. Uncontrovertedly, the plaintiffs/respondents are recorded owners, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, qua, wherewith, hence, concurrent decrees, of, possession, became rendered, rather against the aggrieved defendant. The aggrieved defendant, has not, contested the validity of entries, as, occur in the revenue records, and, as appertain to the suit khasra numbers, wherein(s), in the column of ownership, the plaintiffs/respondents, are, echoed, to be, owners of the suit land. However, he contends, that, with the revenue records appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, and, respectively borne, in, the jamabandis appertaining therewith, and, as, embodied respectively in Ex.P1 to Ex.P-3 & Ex. D1 to Ext. However, he contends, that, with the revenue records appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, and, respectively borne, in, the jamabandis appertaining therewith, and, as, embodied respectively in Ex.P1 to Ex.P-3 & Ex. D1 to Ext. D-6, rather making graphic unfoldings, vis-a-vis, the defendants, in, the column of possession thereof, being echoed, as, "Kabiz", (i) and, also with the predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiff one Magar Singh, making a signatured statement before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade concerned, whereunder, he acquiesced, to, the validity of the afore entries, borne, in the revenue record concerned, (ii) thereupon, the afore acceptances by the predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiffs/respondents, also carrying, a, further connotation, vis-a-vis, the defendant becoming empowered, to, contend qua his also holding, a, valid title, as, owner, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (iii) besides, his holding valid empowerments to contest the decree of possession, as stands, hence, concurrently rendered against him. However, the afore made contention before this Court, would become accepted, by this Court, upon, evidence becoming adduced, (iv) vis-avis, in contemporaneity, to, the occurrences, in, the apposite revenue record, of, the afore acquiesced entries, rather the defendant tendering rather rent in cash, or, in kind to the landlord/owner, of, the suit land, (a) and, whereupon, this Court, would draw, a further conclusion qua the afore entered status, of, the defendant, in, the revenue record, as, a "Kabiz" also clothing him, with, a further concomitant statutory bestowment, hence, appertaining, to, conferment, of, proprietary rights, becoming bestowed, upon, him, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, (b) and, thereupon also the statutory acquisition, of, afore proprietary rights, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, also hence leveraging the plaintiff, to, validly contest, the, plaintiffs' suit, for possession, anvilled, upon, theirs being recorded owners thereof. However, the afore evidence is grossly amiss besides there along with, hence, the defendant neither claiming nor proving qua his acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, through, adverse possession, hence, the concurrently recorded decrees, of, possession, as, rendered against him, are rather valid on all fronts. 4. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned courts below have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 4. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned courts below have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, and, against the defendants. 5. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the extant Regular Second Appeal, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments, and, decrees rendered by 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.