JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The plaintiffs' suit seeking therein a declaratory decree, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, besides a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, and, in the alternative for possession, in, respect thereof, stood dismissed hence under concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the learned Courts below. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved there from, hence, instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Nanku, defendant No.10, since deceased jointly owned and possessed land to the extent of 49 bighas, 2 biswas, hereinafter referred to as the suit land, with the plaintiffs and others out of the total land measuring 91 bighas 3 biswas. He had no issues. During his life time he gifted 35 biswas 1 biswa land to defendants No.1 and 2 through registered gift deed of 19.10.1991 out of his share. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit land by way of family settlement effect on 15.5.1964 between him, defendant No.10, Mast Ram, defendant No.11 father of defendants No.1 and 2, Harbans defendant No.3 and Dina Nath, predecessor in title of defendants No.4 to 8. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction and in the alternative for possession on the aforesaid grounds and also on the ground that on account of family settlement, defendant No.10 had no right to execute the gift deed as he was never owner of the land and apart from it he had not mental capacity at that time to execute it. In the alternative, the plaintiff alleged the suit land to be coparcenary property, therefore, respondent No.1 having no right to alienate the suit land by way of gift to defendants No.1 and 2. The gift deed was, therefore alleged to be void ab inito. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendants No.1, 2, 10 and 11, in their joint written statement denied that defendant No.10 had no mental capacity to execute the gift deed and alleged that he execute it in the sound state of mind. Defendants/respondents also alleged pendency of the partition proceedings before the A.C. 1st Grade, Nalagarh. The existence of any family settlement effected in 1964 was denied. It was also denied that defendant No.10 had no right in the property. Defendants/respondents also alleged pendency of the partition proceedings before the A.C. 1st Grade, Nalagarh. The existence of any family settlement effected in 1964 was denied. It was also denied that defendant No.10 had no right in the property. The possession of the plaintiff and his having spent Rs.40,000/- on erection of boundary wall and planting of trees has also not been admitted. Similar written statement, has been filed by other defendants. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement s of the defendant s, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement s and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is sole owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of family settlement dated 15.5.1964? OPP. 2. If issue No.1, is not proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP 3. Whether the Gift Deed dated 19.10.1991 is null and void, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is ancestral coparcenary property, if so, its effect? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by own act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD 9. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant s herein. In an appeal, preferred there from, by, the plaintiff/appellant s herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 26.11.2006, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. When the appeal came up for admission, on 26.11.2006, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned lower appellate court being last court of fact is right in not discussing the entire oral and documentary evidence as required of it in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and reported in 200(5) SCC page 653? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of non consideration of the statements of PW-1 to PW-3 and Ex.P-1 to P-3? 3. Whether the learned lower appellate court is right in taking judicial notice of gift deed which has not otherwise been proved on record in accordance with law? 4. Whether the learned courts below are right in not consideration the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 4: 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has at the out set, hence, made a concentrated assault, upon, the impugned judgments, and, decrees, as concurrently recorded, by both the learned courts below, and, the afore assault, is, centered upon (a) the learned First Appellate Court in transgression of the mandate, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, enshrined in a case, titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh (dead) through his LRs, (2000) 5 SCC 652 , (b) where within a mandate is cast, upon, the learned First Appellate Court, to make a critical analysis, of, the entire material before it, rather hence proceeding, to, in a mechanical manner, rather affirm the findings recorded, upon, the relevant issues, by the learned trial Court, (c) and, in case the afore critical analysis of the entire material, existing before the learned First Appellate Court, is hence not manifest in the pronouncement made, upon, the apposite first appeal, (d) thereupon, the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, is, ingrained with, a, gross infirmity of non application of mind, and, it warrants reversal. He also proceed to submit, that, when the afore infirmities are evidently existing, in, the mandate recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, (e), thereupon, this Court in tandem therewith hence record a verdict rather reversing the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, and, to also make an order of remand of the lis, to the learned First Appellate Court, for, enabling it to record fresh findings, upon, Civil Appeal No. 2/NL/13 of 2005/02. 9. The afore submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, though, prima facie held some vigour, and, tenacity, and, this Court hence would lean towards accepting Civil Appeal No. 2/NL/13 of 2005/02, and, would also proceed to remand it, to the learned First Appellate Court, for enabling it to record fresh findings, on all, the grounds, ventilated in the memorandum of appeal instituted there before, and, against, the judgment, and, decree recorded by the learned trial Court, upon, Civil Suit No. 37/1 of 1994. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereafter, this Court is disinclined, to, make the afore endeavour, (a) given paragraph N.11 of the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 2/NL/13 of 2005/02, making clear under scorings qua, upon, the afore civil appeal was listed for arguments, before the learned First Appellate Court, rather thereat the learned counsel for the appellant, making a submission qua his confining, his arguments qua lack of mental capacity, of, one Nanku to make the gift, vis-a-vis, the suit property. The afore submission, addressed before the learned First Appellate Court, by the learned counsel, for the appellants, does render, open a conclusion, qua the counsel, for, the appellants appearing before the learned First Appellate Court, rather waiving, and, abandoning all other ground s, as, espoused in the memorandum of appeal, instituted before the learned Fist Appellate Court, (i) and, thereupon, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court, is, estopped to contend, on anvil of the afore citation, that rather the learned First Appellate Court, was enjoined to delve into the entire material placed before it, (ii) and, also was enjoined to record findings upon all the grounds, as taken in the memorandum of appeal, instituted before the learned first appellate Court. Furthermore, the afore submission, as finds mention in paragraph No.11, of the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, enjoins fastening, of, conclusivity thereto, and, is not amenable for being reneged or resiled, (iii) unless a motion was made, only before the learned First Appellate Court, that, the afore argument, upon which the learned First Appellate Court, was led to make, a, pronouncement upon Civil Appeal No. 2/NL/13 of 2005/02, rather being made hence under a bonafide mistake. However, the material existing on record, does not, make any display, that any motion was made before the learned First Appellate Court, by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the afore submission, upon, which the appeal was decided, was a sequel, of, sheer bonafide error or mistake. Consequently, rather firmest conclusivity is to be meted, to the afore recorded submission made by the counsel, for the appellants, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, concomitantly the learned counsel for the appellants, (a) is estopped, to contend that any want, on the part, of, the learned First Appellate Court, to, record findings, upon, all the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal, instituted there before, rather rendering the verdict impugned before this Court, to, be concludable, to stand, ingrained with a gross infirmity,( b) nor he can hence contend that the extant Regular Second Appeal, be allowed, and, the matter be remitted to the learned First Appellate Court, to, record fresh findings, upon, all the relevant issues. In coming to the afore view, this Court, is, supported by a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, recorded in case titled as State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another, (1982) 2 SCC 463 , the relevant paragraph No.4 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- "4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment." 10. Be that as it may, even otherwise, substantial questions of law, other than the substantial question, of law No.1, also constitute, the, apposite substantial questions of law, upon, which the extant second appeal was admitted, (i) thereupon, when this Court, for reasons, to be assigned hereinafter, also proceeds to consider, the, efficacy thereof, (ii) thereupon, even if any iota of any infirmity, as may exist in the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, rather would not imbue the judgment recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, with any vitiating vice. 11. The appellants had reared a contention, in the plaint, where through, he made, a, challenge, vis-a-vis, the apposite gift deed, (i) and, the afore contention, is embodied, in the factum of defendant No.10, not, holding the apposite mental capacity, to execute, any, valid gift deed. An issue in respect thereof was struck, serialized at issue No.3, and, the discharging onus qua therewith was cast, upon, the plaintiff. Even though, the apposite registered gift deed hence exists at page 192, of, the record of the learned trial Court, (ii) however, neither the plaintiff nor his witnesses, in their respectively recorded deposition, made any unfoldings, qua the lack of mental capacity, of, defendant No.10, to, hence validly execute a gift deed, vis-a-vis, the suit property. Since, the pleaded ground rather appertain s hence singularly, qua the afore gift deed, standing imbued with a stench, of, voidness sparked by the lack, of, mental capacity of defendant No.10, and, (iii) when the afore espoused pleaded ground, for reasons afore-stated, remained not proven, (iv) AND, with the plaintiff not recording any averment in the plaint qua any element of fictitiousness or fraud hence making a deep pervasive percolation, vis-a-vis, the validity of the gift deed, given the thumb marking thereof, by defendant No.10, being fictitious or thumb marks existing thereon, of, witnesses thereof being also fictitious, (v) hence, any want of evidence, on record, for proving the afore un-pleaded ground, hence, did not, enjoin adduction of any evidence, by the defendants, obviously for proving the existence thereon, of, valid and genuine signatures of its executant, and, of the witnesses thereof. In aftermath, with the existence on record, of, the afore registered gift deed, and, with the requisite evidence, vis-a-vis, the apt imperative pleaded fact, remaining un-adduced, thereupon, it was not in-sagacious for both the learned courts below hence to form a conclusion qua the validity, of, execution of the apposite gift deed, vis-a-vis, the suit property. Even, otherwise, also any judicial note taken by the learned First Appellate Court, qua legality, of, registration of the apposite gift deed, is, permissible, especially when the statutory act of registration, enjoys a presumption of truth, and, when for rebutting the afore presumption, the plaintiff is enjoined to adduce apt rebuttal thereto evidence, and, when the apt rebutting thereto evidence, oral or documentary, remains uadduced, thereupon, the afore registered gift deed hence enjoys, on all fronts, rather a conclusive presumption of truth. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also proceeded to rebut the efficacy of the entries, borne in the jamabandis appertaining to the suit land, on anvil, of a khangi settlement, rather occurring in the year 1964, (a) where through, he purportedly hence acquired exclusive title qua the suit khasra numbers. However, the afore pleaded fact remained not efficaciously proven, rather with the existence of record of Ex.D-3, a plaint instituted by the plaintiff, (I) wherefrom, it is rather unraveled, that, the khasra numbers mentioned therein, holding analogity, vis-a-vis, the extant suit khasra numbers, (ii) and, with the impleadment therein of one Layak Ram, and, one Harbans, both of whom, are impleaded in the extant suit, as co-defendants No.2, and, 3, (iii) and, with his claiming a declaratory relief, on anvill, of afore stated khasra numbers, being joint amongst the co-sharers concerned, (iv) thereupon, the afore Ex.D-3, comprises an admission of the plaintiff, qua the correctness, and, truthfulness of the entries hence occurring, vis-a-vis, the suit land, in the jamabandis borne in Ex.P-1, and, in Ex. P-2, (v) thereupon, the plaintiff has abysmally failed to erode the truth thereof, (vi) rather a presumption of truth, as, attached thereto is enhanced, (vii) and, also acquires conclusivity, (viii) thereupon, also the plea of any private partition or any settlement amongst the contesting parties rather occurring, is, eroded of its efficacy. 13. The plaintiff s has raised a weak plea qua this acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit land by way of adverse possession. 13. The plaintiff s has raised a weak plea qua this acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit land by way of adverse possession. However, with a conclusive presumption of truth, being attached to Ex.P-1 and P-2, exhibits whereof, comprise jamabandis appertaining to the suit land, and, with the plaintiff being recorded, as co-owner, along with other co-owners concerned, qua the suit land, (i) and, when no plea of acquisition of title, by adverse possession being rearable against co-owners, (ii) unless there is a pleaded complete ouster, of all the recorded co-owners, and, also potent evidence qua therewith exists on record, hence, for wants thereof, rather the afore plea of acquisition of title by the plaintiff s, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, being un-espousable. Furthermore, with, a catena of verdicts, recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court barring the plaintiff to raise in the affirmative, any, plea of his acquiring title by adverse possession, hence also estops the plaintiff, to contend that the plaintiff, has, acquired title by way of adverse possession. 14. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court, as also, by the learned trial Court, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions, of law are answered in favour of the defendants/respondents, and, against the appellants/plaintiff s. 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgments and decrees are maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.