JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, and, also for rendition of a decree, vis-a-vis, demolition of, the, newly constructed boundary wall, upon, the suit land, stood dismissed by the learned trial, and, in an appeal carried therefrom by the plaintiff/respondent(s) herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court reversed the judgment, and, decree pronounced by the learned trial Court, and, rather rendered, the, espoused decree, against the defendants. The defendants/appellants herein being aggrieved therefrom, hence, instituted the extant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff (now deceased) is owner in possession of the suit land comprising Khata No.32 min, Khatauni No.87 min, Khasra Nos. 2097/961 and 2099/961, measuring 0-00-32 hectares and Khasra Nos. 2101/962/1 and 2101/962/2 land measuring 0-00-63 hectares vide jamabandi for the year 1997-98 of Mohal, Mauza and Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendants have illegally taken into possession the suit land on March, 2, 2000 by raising a boundary wall. Therefore, it has been prayed that the suit be decree for possession of the suit land by demolishing the boundary wall. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua limitation, estoppel, locus sandi, cause of action, maintainability, etc. It has also been averred in the preliminary objections that the defendants have become owners of Khasra Nos. 2101/962/1, 2101/962/2 and 2099/961 by way of adverse possession. On merits, it has been submitted that plaintiff has exchanged the Khasra No.2097/961 with the land of the defendants entered in Khasra No.2098/961 on 22.4.1998, and, since then the defendants are owners in possession of this Khasra Number. The defendants are in possession of other Khasra numbers for the last more than 25 years and their possession is open hostile and well within the knowledge of the plaintiff which has ripened into ownership by the doctrine of adverse possession. The possession of the defendants over the suit land was never objected to by the plaintiff, hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement, and, re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. The possession of the defendants over the suit land was never objected to by the plaintiff, hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement, 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 entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the defendants have constructed a wall on the suit land, if so its effect, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether suit is barred by period of limitation, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped form filing the present suit as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether defendants have become owners of the Kh. Nos. 2101/962/1 and 2101/962/2, 2099/961 by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 10. Whether plaintiff has exchanged Khasra No.2097/961 with the defendants and if so its effect? OPD. 11. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiff/respondents herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed, the, appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 26.7.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/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 26.7.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the appellant-defendant had the right to be afforded an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence which the respondent-plaintiff was allowed to lead by the first appellate Court and whether the denial of that right has prejudiced the appellant to such an extent that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court are liable to be reversed on this score alone? 2. Whether the writing of exchange, Ex.DW1/A has wrongly been held to be inadmissible by the first appellate court and in fact the said writing is admissible and relevant, as claimed by the appellant-defendant? 3. Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside because the said court has passed the said judgment and decree without looking into the question of the suit being not within time particularly when the trial court had returned the finding that the suit was barred by time? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 8. The learned trial Court in declining the espoused relief to the plaintiff, had, concluded qua the defendants rather proving theirs acquiring title by adverse possession, vis-a-vis, khasra numbers 2099/961, 2101/962/2, and, part of kahsra No.2101/962/1. Moreover, the learned trial Court, upon, meteing credence to Ex.DW1/A, exhibit whereof comprises a document, (i) where through, the purported exchange, vis-a-vis the khasra numbers, as, disclosed therein hence occurred inter se the plaintiff, and, the defendants, (ii) thereupon, concluded, that, in consonance therewith, a path rather existing upon the apt khasra No.2098/961. Consequently, the learned trial Court also concluded, that, the plaintiff hence being estopped to institute, the apt suit for possession, qua, all the aforesaid suit khasra numbers. Preponderantly also the refusal of the espoused relief to the plaintiff, with, respect to khasra No. 2101/962/1, and, Khasra No. 2101/962/2, stood anvilled, (iii) upon no site plan, and, also the jamabandi appertaining, to the afore khasra numbers rather existing on record, (iii) besides obviously the afore reason held tacit underlinings, of, want of demarcation, hence, delineating therein, the encroachment made thereon by the defendants, rather, necessitating refusal, of, espoused relief.. 9. 9. However, the learned First Appellate Court, discountenanced all the afore reasoning, afforded by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff/respondent herein, during the pendency of the first appeal, before, the learned first appellate Court, instituted an application cast under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, (i) where through, they sought permission to place on record, certified copy of judgment, and, decree respectively bearing EX. CA, and, Ex.CB, and, also sought leave to tender, copy of missal hakiyat embodied in Ex.CC, (ii) and, the afore application was allowed, and, all the afore documents hence were permitted to be adduced into evidence, and, on anvil thereof, the, learned first appellate court, recorded a conclusion adversarial to the defendants. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants, has contended, with much vigour (i) that want of, an, opportunity to the defendants to adduce rebuttal evidence qua therewith, rather per se diminished the probative vigour meted to the afore documents, by the learned first appellate Court, (ii) and, hence the learned counsel for the appellants further espoused, that, solitarily on the afore score, the, impugned judgment and decree warrants reversal, (iii) and, after quashing the impugned judgment, and, decree, the matter being remanded to the learned First Appellate Court, with, a direction to it, to, afford an opportunity to the appellants, to, adduce apt rebuttal evidence, and, to, thereafter pronounce upon the lis, hence, a fresh decision, in accordance with law. However, the afore espousal falters, (a) given the order made by the learned first appellate Court, on 27.10.2004, holding clear disclosure therein, qua arguments being heard thereat, on both Civil Appeal No. 111-B/XIII of 2002 , as well as, upon, an, application, cast under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, (b) and, both being thereafter listed, on 1.11.2004, for pronouncement of judgment/order. Since, it was thereat espousable by the appellants/plaintiffs, for, segregation, from the afore civil appeal, the application cast, under the provisions, of, order 41, rule 27 of the CPC, (c) and, also to make a vehement contest before the learned first appellate Court, that, the hearing upon the apposite civil appeal, be deferred until an adjudication is made, upon, the afore civil miscellaneous application, (d) yet the afore endeavour being evidently abandoned thereat by the learned counsel, for, the appellants/plaintiff, (e) consequently, the learned counsel for the appellants, is estopped to contend, that, for lack of an apt opportunity, to adduce evidence in rebuttal, qua, the afore documents, hence, they are wanting in legal efficacy. Furthermore, with the afore exhibits, acquiring, conclusivity, and, rather with the afore exhibits, (f) comprising the judgment, and, decree, as well as copy of missal hakiyat, prepared in consonance therewith, (g) and, when it has not been demonstrated, that, the judgment, and, decree respectively embodied in Ex.CA, and, in Ex. CB, being denuded, of, their efficacy, given the Hon'ble Apex Court rendering a verdict, hence, reversing them, (h) thereupon, the reliance as placed thereon, by the learned first appellate Court, in making dis-concurrent findings, vis-a-vis, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, does not suffer, from, any palpable infirmity. 11. In addition, with the judgment, and, decree respectively, embodied in Ex.CA, and, in, Ex.CB, (i) rather appertaining to those khasra numbers, hence, holding analogity, vis-a-vis, the extant suit kahsra numbers, (ii) when there is also a further analogity inter se contesting parties, in, both litigations, (iii) thereupon, the afore judgment, and, decree, is, both relevant, (iv) and, also hence reliance stands aptly, and, tenably rather placed thereon by the learned first appellate court, for hence, adjudicating an almost alike dispute, engaging the legal combatants hereat. The learned first appellate court had proceed, to, on anvil of the afore judgment, and, decree, (v) conclude that excepting khasra number 2101/962/1, all, the other khasra numbers rather being in possession of the plaintiff, (vi) and, also made a further conclusion, that, the apt possession, was only delivered in pursuance to the conclusive, and, binding judgment, and, decree hence pronounced, and, embodied in Ex.PW2/A. Even though, the afore taking of possession by the plaintiff, of those khasra numbers, as, disclosed in Ex.PW2/A, hence occurred on September 23, 1994, (vii) and, where thereupon the defendants contends, that, prior thereto also they, with, a, requisite animus possidendi, and, with, a, hostile animus possidendi, held hence possession, of, the relevant suit khasra numbers, besides also for the statutorily enjoined period of time, (viii) thereupon, the findings, vis-a-vis, acquisition of title by the defendants, vis-a-vis, the relevant suit khasa numbers rather enjoined tenacity rather being meted thereto. However, benefit, if any, on the afore score, also cannot be derived by the defendants/appellants, (ix) given, DW-2 rendering, a, deposition on oath, that, the boundary wall in respect whereof, a decree of demolition was sought, rather being constructed, only, two years back, and, when his statement stands hence recorded on 16th October 2001, (x) hence upon, counting two years earlier therefrom, rather spurs a conclusion qua the afore boundary wall, being raised subsequent to the decree pronounced in Ex.PW2/A, (xi) and, also with civil suit No. 58/2000 standing instituted on 6.5.2000, (xii) thereupon, the afore apt overt act, committed by the defendants, upon, the relevant suit khasra numbers, (xiii) does not, obviously beget satiation of the trite principle, that, the afore overt act, hence, purportedly committed, with, a purported animus possidendi, also begetting satiation of the further imperative legal principle, qua the statutorily enjoined length/duration, of, possession, standing hence also evidently accomplished by the defendants. Likewise, the, deposition of DW-4, underscores the factum qua the contested boundary wall, hence, standing raised 5-6 years back, and, with his deposition, standing recorded on 8th January, 2002, (xiv) thereupon, for, an, alike reason recorded by this Court, upon, appreciating, the, deposition of DW-2, hence, this Court makes a firm conclusion, qua the defendants, failing to prove, that they acquired title by adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the relevant suit kahsra numbers, by theirs holding hostile possession thereof, for the statutorily enjoined duration or length of time. 12. 12. Be that as it may, the learned first appellate court, had, declined to assign any probative vigour, to Ex.DW1/A, (a) on anvil of, despite it, conveying title, vis-a-vis, immovable property, hence, holding a value of more than Rs.100/-, (b) and, with the afore exhibit hence warranting its being compulsorily registered, (c) and, with its remaining unregistered, hence, it being both inadmissible, and, unreadable in evidence. Even if, assumingly the afore document is admitted by the contesting parties, and, when, hence the afore reasoning, as, assigned by the learned first appellate court, for, declining to assign probative vigour thereto, (d) may also hence tentatively suffer some defect, (e) nonetheless, with the defendants propagating the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession qua the contested boundary wall, (f) and, when for the afore reasons, theirs rather failing to prove the afore espousal, (g) thereupon, it has to be concluded that the defendants admitting qua theirs making an apt encroachment, by theirs raising construction of the contested boundary wall, upon, the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff, (h) and, also they are to be concluded, to also acquiesce qua, the, raising, of the boundary wall, rather existing, on khasra numbers, other than the ones falling within the domain of Ex.DW1/A. Furthermore, any lack of appending with the plaint, the demarcation report, and, the tatima prepared, in, consonance therewith, hence, delineating the specifications, of, the boundary wall, is wholly unnecessary, and, would not, also for, the afore reasons, gain any conclusion qua no executable binding decree, of, mandatory injunction, by way of demolition being renderable, qua it, and, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff. 13. Given the making of the afore conclusion, the affirmative findings appertaining to the plaintiff's suit being barred by limitation, rather both subsides, and, wanes, (i) necessarily also for further reason, that, with the defendants' witnesses, hence, making the afore unequivocal depositions qua assumption of possession, comprised in the raising of the contested boundary wall, upon, the relevant suit kahsra numbers, (ii) and, it hence, occurring three years prior, to, institution, of, the suit for possession, hence, the institution, of, the extant suit with in 3-4 years therefrom, rather render it, to fall within the domain, of, the apt statutorily prescribed period, of, limitation, hence, the affirmative findings recorded, upon, the issue of limitation, by the learned trial court, are, rather frail, and, warrant reversal. 14. 14. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court, has not, excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions, of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, and, against the appellants/defendants. 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment and decree pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 111-B/XIII of 2002 on 1.11.2004 is 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.