JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The defendants' becoming aggrieved, by the concurrently recorded verdicts, against them, by both the learned Courts below, hence for striving, to, beget reversal thereof, rather institute thereagainst, the, instant Regular Second Appeal, hence before this Court. 2. The appeal came up for admission, before this Court, on, 28.6.2010, and stood admitted, on, the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the findings given in judgment and decree dated 14.7.1987 rendered by Sub-Judge, Kullu, in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1985, titled Dhani Ram vs. Chaman Lal are binding on the appellants when they or their predecessor Shri Rattan Lal were not party in the said suit? (ii) Whether the warrant of possession Ext. PG and Ext. PH vide which the plaintiffs/respondents claims to have taken possession of suit property has been rightly construed when it is not linked with the suit land.? (iii) Whether the first appellate Court below committed illegality in rejecting the additional documentary evidence produced by the appellants/defendants in appeal by saying that such documentary evidence in favour of appellant is not linked with the suit property? (iv) What is the effect of order dated 19.11.2001 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.21020 titled Chaman Lal vs. Dhani Ram regarding settlement-compromise whereby Bhaga Devi, Ishari Ram and Puran Singh, predecessors of present respondents relinquished their rights claims and title on the land comprised in khasra No. 1297 and 1998 in favour of Chaman Lal which stand referred in Jamabandi Ext. PB and PC? 3. In Jamabandis appertaining to the suit land, and, respectively borne in Ext. PB, and in Ext. PC, hence make valid displays vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, becoming echoed therein, as owners, in, possession, thereof. The acquisition of right, title or interest, hence by the plaintiffs, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra Nos., was through, a, registered deed of conveyance, made, vis-a-vis, them, hence, by, one Dhani Ram. The afore executed, and, unchallenged hence registered deed of conveyance, rather by Dhani Ram, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, occurs, subsequent, to, the completest execution, of, warrants of possession, for, there through(s) naturally efficacious execution, becoming completedly enforced, vis-a-vis, the apt binding and conclusive decree, becoming, hence rendered, in, a litigation interse, the, afore Dhani Ram, and, one Chaman Lal. The apt warrants, of, possession, as, evident, from Ext. The apt warrants, of, possession, as, evident, from Ext. PH, exhibit whereof, is, the report of the Bailiff concerned, hence, make echoings qua there through rather possession of the suit property, becoming handed over, from one Chaman Lal to the afore Dhani Ram, the vendor, of, the plaintiff. A perusal of Ext. PH, also makes, a, vivid disclosure, qua after demolition, of, a two storeyed building, standing upon the suit land, hence, the, apt vacant possession, of, the disputed khasra No, becoming handed over to Dhani Ram, the, vendor, of, the plaintiffs. The factum, of, a construction becoming, upon, the suit land rather, raised by the Judgment Debtor, in, execution petition No. 27-x of 1993, petition whereof, became instituted, for, enforcing, the, apt binding and conclusive decree, made upon, civil suit No. 40 of 1985, titled, as "Dhani Ram versus Chaman Lal", is, also vividly echoed, in, the deposition, of, DW-2. However, the learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved defendants, has, contended before this Court, that, the afore construction existing, on the suit khasra Nos, and, as raised, by the afore Chaman Lal, and qua wherewith, a binding, and, conclusive decree, was pronounced, upon him, for, his, handing over vacant possession thereof, to, Dhani Ram, the vendor of the plaintiff, (i) and also despite, the, afore decree, becoming completely executed against Chaman Lal, yet, the disputed here at construction, as raised, upon, the suit land, by, the defendants, rather remaining un-established, to become raised, at, the relevant site, qua wherewith, a, binding and conclusive decree, was, rendered in Civil suit No. 40, of, 1985 (ii) and also, hence the completest execution thereof, as, echoed in Ext. PH, rather not de-facilitating, the, defendants, to, make a contention, from, adduced cogent oral evidence, qua theirs acquiring title, through, adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the structure raised, upon, the suit land, and, also espouse qua rather the meeting, of, irreverence thereto, hence by both the learned Courts below, hence becoming un-tenable. PH, rather not de-facilitating, the, defendants, to, make a contention, from, adduced cogent oral evidence, qua theirs acquiring title, through, adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the structure raised, upon, the suit land, and, also espouse qua rather the meeting, of, irreverence thereto, hence by both the learned Courts below, hence becoming un-tenable. However, the afore submission, is, rudderless, given (a) despite the JD, in execution petition No. 27-x of 1993, becoming served, and, also his making, a, valid participation, in, the relevant proceedings, drawn, in the afore, has yet evidently neither resisted nor obstructed, the, execution, of, the apposite decree, through, his espousing, vis-vis, the defendants, hereat rather holding, the, apt possessions thereof, (b) nor also, the defendants', despite, the Officer appointed by the executing Court, hence reporting, vis-a-vis, the latter qua his making the, completest execution, of, the binding and conclusive decree, made, upon Civil Suit No. 40 of 1985, hence visibly made any protest or remonstrance’s before him, or before the learned executing Court, vis-a-vis, the binding and conclusive decree, becoming un-amenable, for execution, vis-a-vis, them, (c) given theirs, rather holding evident possession thereof, (d) nor the defendants, thereafter, through casting, a, motion under, the provisions, of, Order 21 Rule 27 of the CPC, hence, before the learned executing Court, rather attempted, to, obstruct the completest execution, of, the binding, and, conclusive decree, rendered, upon, afore Chaman Lal, in a suit titled as "Dhani Ram versus Chaman Lal". The effects, of the afore wants, emphatically hence firmly estop, and, also completely bar, the, defendants hereat, to contend, that other, than the structure raised by Chaman Lal, over, the suit khasra Nos, any other structure existed, rather thereons, hence prior to the year 1984, (e) nor also are empowered, to, make any further contention, that, with the statutorily prescribed period of 12 months, elapsing since then, upto the institution of the suit, hence, their through outs therewiths hence, possessions, vis-a-vis, the suit land, rather with, the, requisite animus possidendi, hence becoming ripened, into, absolute titles thereon. The effect of the afore estoppels, working against the defendants, also, rather engenders an inference, qua the structure, if any, raised by the defendants, upon the suit property, becoming raised, subsequent, to, the execution, of, the unchallenged registered deed of conveyance, interse Dhani Ram, and, the plaintiff, and, when thereafter, upto, the institution, of, the apt extant suit, the statutory ordained, hence apposite period, of, limitation, remains rather un-expired/ uncompleted, thereupon also the afore espousal becomes rudderless. 4. Be that as it may, the execution, of the registered deed of conveyance, hence interse the plaintiffs, and, the afore Dhani Ram, and, obviously, made after the completest execution, of, the apt binding and conclusive decree, becoming rendered, upon Civil suit No. 40 of 1985,(i) besides, also after the completest execution thereof, becoming visited, upon, the afore Dhani Ram, the, vendors of the defendants, renders, rather the plaintiffs, to, there through hence acquire valid possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra Nos. Besides, the lodging, of, an FIR containing therein, hence, averments, against, the defendants, and, with the afore FIR resulting, in, drawing, of, a criminal case bearing No. 245-I of 1999/177-II of 1999, before the learned CJM concerned, rather against the plaintiffs, (ii) and wherebefore a compromise, was, entered into, against the afore, on 5.2.2003, hence wherein, the defendants admitted, vis-a-vis, theirs, surrendering their possession, of, the vacant portion, of, the suit land, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, (iii) besides, also theirs therebefore making a statement, as embodied, in Ext. PJ, containing echoing), vis-a-vis, theirs holding unauthorized possession, of, land, measuring, 12'x25', hence for the last four years, and, rather theirs' obviously, omitting, to make, therebefore any propagation, hence therein, alike the propagation, made, in their hereat written statement, vis-a-vis theirs, holding possession, of, the suit land, since, 1984, (iv) hence their possession thereof, with any purported animus possidendi, rather remains unripened into apt perfection, of, title qua the suit khasra Nos. The afore omissions, combined, alongwith the defendants, also omitting to adduce, any material vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis the completest execution, being meted, upon, the binding decree, of, possession, as, rendered in the afore suit, titled as "Dhani Ram versus Chaman Lal," theirs through, the aegis, of, the learned executing Court, seeking obstruction thereof, (v) thereupon also the oral evidence adduced, by, the defendants, and it making displays, qua theirs acquiring title, through adverse possession vis-a-vis, suit khasra No., given, theirs since 6.8.1984, upto the date of institution of the suit, hence, with, the requisite animus possidendi, completing, the requisite mandated period of time, for, there through(s) ripened title, as owners hence becoming perfected qua thereto, is, unmeritworthy, of, probative vigor, nor any credit is to be assigned thereto. 5. Even though, lastly the learned counsel, for, the defendant has relied upon, the, compromise entered into, interse Chaman Lal and Dhani Ram, hence, before, the Hon'ble Apex Court, (a) compromise whereof became drawn interse, them hence therebefore, on 19.11.2001, (b) and hence contends, that the defendants becoming empowered, to, succor rather theirs' afore propagation. However, the afore compromise, entered into before the Hon'ble Apex Court, is, drawn interse Chaman Lal, and, Dhani Ram, and, obviously, when it has remained undrawn, interse the plaintiffs, in, the instant suit, and, the hereat defendants/appellants, (c) besides when in the litigation interse Chaman Lal, and, Dhani Ram the apt conclusive, and, binding decree sequelled, its completest, and, efficacious execution thereof, through, the aegis, of, the learned executing Court concerned, (d) and also when the apt possession, of the suit property, in, the apt litigation became delivered, to, Dhani Ram, the vendor, of, the plaintiffs, (e) thereupon the afore compromise, is, neither just nor essential, for, resting the controversy engaging the plaintiffs, and, the defendants, hence, the afore compromise, is, irrelevant for all requisite purpose. The substantial questions, of, law are answered accordingly. 6. There is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgments, and decrees, rendered by both the learned Courts below, are affirmed and maintained. Also, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.