JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree for declaration, as also for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit land, stood, hence, under concurrent verdicts pronounced by both the learned courts below, rather dismissed. The plaintiffs/appellants herein are aggrieved therefrom, hence, institute the instant regular second appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the deceased Plaintiff Shankar Dass had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove all types of encroachment including house and other structures, lifting of all types of malwa, stones, debris and other waste material and further restraining them from interfering over the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over abadi land measuring 2-5 bighas fully detailed in the plaint, and, the plaintiff being one of the estate holder has right, title or interest over the same, whereas, defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest whatsoever with the same. Besides the afore abadi suit property, the plaintiff is also owner in possession of land measuring 11-12 bighas, comprised in Khata No.11, Khatauni No. 11 to 13, Kitas-3, and, land measuring 39-5, bighas comprised in Khata No.8, Khatauni No.9, Khasra No.12 in mauja Bhajlog, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. Defendant No.1 had purchased land in mauja Bhajlog but since he had not purchased the rights in the abadi deh from the vendor, defendant No.1 and his sons defendants NO.2 to 5 are strangers to the suit property. The defendants with malafide intention in order to cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff started interference over the suit abadi property without any right, title and interest, and, one of the defendant is serving in H.P. Police, and, he has been advancing threats to use his official status. Not only this, the defendants have also thrown debris over the suit abadi. The defendants have encroached upon three biswas of area out of the suit property and have raised construction over the same despite the fact that they are strangers to the property. Defendants were requested several times to admit the claim of the plaintiff but they refused to do so. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement to the plaint, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections, qua maintainability and estoppel. Defendants were requested several times to admit the claim of the plaintiff but they refused to do so. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement to the plaint, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections, qua maintainability and estoppel. On merits, they denied that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest with the suit property. It is submitted that, in fact defendant No.1 had purchased the land in village Bhajlog in the year 1958 along with house, and, cow shed existing over the suit property from Ram Gopal, and, since then he is in peaceful and continuous possession of the abadi, and, there is no question of any encroachment by the defendant over any portion of abadi land. The suit property being abadi deh land is joint amongst the proprietors and the same is yet to be partitioned and there are residential houses and cowsheds of all the proprietors of the village and there is no question of making any encroachment by the defendants. Defendant No.1 being proprietor of the village having 22 bighas of land including abadi deh in village Bhajlog, has every right in the abadi land. The plaintiff is habitual of filing frivolous suits against the defendants as earlier he had also filed civil suit No.138/1 of 2001/96 against defendant No.2 which was also dismissed by the court on 28.2.2002. 4. 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 for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction, as claimed? 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped due to his own act, conduct and acquiescences? OPD. 5. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff? OPD. 6. Whether this suit is not properly valued for Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 7. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff (s)/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, aggrieved plaintiffs, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the, appeal, and,affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. OPD. 7. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff (s)/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, aggrieved plaintiffs, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the, appeal, and,affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the plaintiffs/appellant (s) 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. 7. Deceased defendant Sobia, had, purchased the land, in the year 1957-58, from one Lal Ram Gopal, through a registered sale deed of 17.2.1958, wherethrough, the afore vendor, hence, alienated, the, land owned and possessed, by him along with structure (s) including a cowshed, existing on the abadi land, rather to one Sobia. The afore Lala Ram Gopal, had acquired title to the suit land, through, a purchase thereof, hence, made in, a, public auction. The validity of the afore acquisition of title, vis-a-vis, the afore Lal Ram Gopal, and, qua the suit land, remained unchallenged nor the validity of execution, of, the afore sale deed by Lala Ram Gopal, vis-a-vis, Sobia, stood cast, any onslaught. The validity of the afore acquisition of title, vis-a-vis, the afore Lal Ram Gopal, and, qua the suit land, remained unchallenged nor the validity of execution, of, the afore sale deed by Lala Ram Gopal, vis-a-vis, Sobia, stood cast, any onslaught. Consequently, with acquisition of title therethrough, in the suit property, by one Sobia, suit property whereof stands reflected in the apposite column, as abadideh, (a) and, when the plaintiff, in his cross-examination, has made an admission qua, since, the purchase of the suit land, by one Sobia, the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, and, with, it carrying in the apposite column, of, the jamabandi appertaining therewith, the classification of abadi deh, and, qua possession, of the suit land by the afore, hence commencing since the year 1957-58, (i) and, when the afore admission, is conjoined with the plaintiff's further admission qua prior to 1994, his not holding, any property in the mohal concerned, does render, open erection, of, an imminent inference, (ii) qua with the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, hence evidently being a member (s) of the village proprietary body, and, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the execution, of the afore sale deed inter him, and, the afore Lal Ram Gopal, (iii) and, further thereonwards his acquisition, of, title, vis-a-vis, the suit land, through, a, validly executed sale deed, rather mobilising to the fullest, the effect qua acquisition, of title by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, through, a validly executed sale deed, from, Lala Ram Gopal, being, not gripped with any vice of any invalidity, (iv) Importantly, when, the afore inference, is, also engendered by the predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants, being for want of his being, a, member of the village proprietary body, hence, standing wholly debarred, to make any valid registered deed, of, conveyance, with the vendor concerned. Further effect thereof, is, when the plaintiff admits qua his prior to 1994, whereat he had acquired title through sale deeds, borne in Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C, qua lands located in mohal concerned, hence, begetting an inference qua his being disabled to acquire title, therethrough, in the suit abadi, and, the concomitant effect thereof being his also being disentitled, for, rendition, of, the claimed decrees. 8. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court, as well as, of the learned trial Court being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. 8. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court, as well as, of 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. Consequently, no substantial questions, of law much less any substantial question of law arise for determination in this appeal. 9. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the concurrent impugned judgments, and, decrees rendered by both 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. Records be sent back forthwith.