JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit seeking therethrough rendition of a declaratory decree, hence proclaiming Jalam, and, Katki as dead, besides, for rendition, of, a further decree qua theirs becoming declared, to be, the LRs of the afore, rather came to be dismissed by the learned Sub Judge I Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. 2. However, the aggrieved therefrom, the, plaintiffs/respondents herein (for short "the plaintiffs"), hence cast a challenge thereon, through, theirs instituting, a, Civil appeal bearing No. 84 of 2003, before, the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P., and, the latter however rendered the afore decrees, vis-a-vis, them. 3. Defendants No. 2 to 5/appellants herein (for short defendants), becoming aggrieved therefrom, cast a challenge, upon, the verdict pronounced, upon, Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2003, through, theirs instituting, the, instant RSA before this Court, and, therethorugh they strive, to, beget reversal, of, the verdict hence rendered, by, the learned first appellate Court. 4. This Court admitted, the, appeal on 11.10.2012, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the first appellate Court that Katku and Jalam being missing for the last more than 20 years are based upon misreading, misinterpreting the pleadings, evidence oral as well as documentary on record and misreading and misinterpreting of the bare provision of law. 2. Whether the learned first Appellate Court was right in not remanding the case to the trial Court for deciding issue No.7 after reversing the findings of the trial Court on issues No.1 to 3 when there is a specific plea of adverse possession over the suit land by the defendant, which was not dealt with by the trial Court keeping in view its findings on issues No.1 to 3 and the finding that the appellants have purchased the share of the plaintiff through sale deed Ex. DW-3/A. Substantial question of law No.1:- 5. DW-3/A. Substantial question of law No.1:- 5. The contesting defendants' admission, in their written-statement instituted, vis-a-vis, the plaint, qua, the propagation made in the latter, vis-a-vis, Katki, and, Jalam being missing, for, the last more than 20 years, hence estops them, from denying the afore averment, (i) and, when thereupon, with, the plaintiffs evidently being, the, apt befitting persons, to, know about the factum, of, the afore surviving or expiring, (ii) besides, when, the mandate of section 108, of, the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, makes visible enshrinings therein qua, upon, the afore statutory propagation being made, by, the apt befitting persons, and, who hereat, are, the plaintiffs, (iii) thereupon, the onus of disproving the afore factum shifting upon the litigant, who, make an adversarial espousal, vis-a-vis, it, (iv) thereupon with the afore initial discharging onus cast, upon, the plaintiffs, becoming hence discharged, and, there along with hence the defendants, on, theirs making the afore admission, were also not enjoined, to, adduce cogent evidence, for, disproving, the, afore factum rather they are concluded, to, reiteratedly also statutorily hence affirm, the, afore averment as carried, in, the plaint. Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act:- Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years- [provided that when] the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is [shifted to] the person who affirms it." 6. In aftermath the declaration pronounced, by the learned first appellate Court qua Katki and Jalam, being dead, is both apt and meritworthy, and, also when the plaintiffs are their respective LRs, conspicuously, when no evidence stands adduced, by, the contesting defendants, vis-avis, the plaintiffs, not being, the LRs of the afore declared deceased, thereupon, the afore substantial questions of law, is, answered against the defendants. Substantial question of law No. 2:- 7. After dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, the latter proceeded to rear an appeal thereagainst, before the learned first appellate Court, and, thereon a verdict, hence, decreeing their suit become pronounced. Substantial question of law No. 2:- 7. After dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, the latter proceeded to rear an appeal thereagainst, before the learned first appellate Court, and, thereon a verdict, hence, decreeing their suit become pronounced. However, even, an, adversarial verdict stood rendered, vis-a-vis, the defendants, by, the learned trial Court, upon, issue No. 7, as, stood framed by the learned trial Judge, (a) and, it was anvilled, upon, the espousal reared by the defendants qua theirs acquiring title, through adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit land, becoming redundant, (b) given, findings holding leanings, vis-a-vis, the defendants rather becoming pronounced, upon issues Nos. 8(a) and 8(b), and, appertaining, to, the valid execution(s), of, the apposite registered deed of conveyance, wherethrough, they acquired title, vis-a-vis the suit property. However, despite, the, afore findings hence adversarial, to, the defendants becoming rendered, upon, issue No.7, the latter did not assail them, either through theirs filing any appeal thereagainst, before the learned first appellate Court or through theirs instituting cross objections, within, Civil Appeal No.84 of 2003. Consequently, the omission of the defendants, to, challenge, the, findings returned against them upon issue No.7, and, appertaining to theirs acquiring title, through, adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit land, do acquire, conclusivity and finality, and, (i) thereupon there was no occasion, for, the learned first appellate Court, to, after setting aside hence findings adversarial to the plaintiffs, as, returned, upon, issues No. 1 and 2, hence by the learned trial Court, and, appertaining to both the afore being declared dead, and, also theirs being declared as their LRs, (ii) besides also after its affirming, the, verdict made by the learned trial Judge, vis-a-vis, the latter, hence pronouncing, upon, the validity of the registered deed of conveyance executed inter-se the plaintiffs, and, the defendants, and, as, borne in Ex. DW-3/A, (iv) rather to thereafter make an order of remand, to the, learned trial Court, for, returning fresh findings, upon, issue No.7, (v)as thereupon, given, the interconnectivity inter-se issue No. 7, and, issue No. 8 (a) and 8 (b), rather the alternative thereto espousal, qua theirs becoming owners, through, adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit land, not only, becoming redundant, (vi) but, also in case an order of remand, vis-a-vis, hence fresh findings being recorded upon issue No. 7, becoming rendered, would bring casualty, upon, the defendants' espousal, in as much as, thereupon it becoming imperative for the learned trial Judge, to also, untenably reconsider the veracity, of, valid concurrent findings returned, upon, issue No. 8(a) and 8 (b). In aftermath, for avoiding the afore ill casualty, the non-making, of, an order, of, remand, by the learned first appellate Court, is, merit-worthy. 8. Reiteratedly, the learned first appellate Court has aptly, not, made an order of remand, vis-a-vis, the learned trial Court, for, returning fresh findings, upon, issue No. 7, (a) given any returning, of, findings afresh, upon, the latter issue also hence enjoining qua the dependent thereon issues No. 8(a), and, 8(b), also concomitantly warranting, qua, fresh findings becoming returned thereon, (b) and, obviously, hence, for ensuring qua valid concurrent findings returned, qua therewith, remaining rather undisturbed, hence, the espousal, for, an order of remand, being rendered, vis-a-vis, the lis, qua it becoming remanded, vis-a-vis, the remandee Court, is, wholly unsustainable. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the, same is accordingly dismissed. Impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back.