JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff''s suit for rendition of a decree for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, stood dismissed, by the learned trial Court, and, the appeal reared thereagainst before the learned first appellate Court by the aggrieved therefrom plaintiff, also sequelled a verdict affirming the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff, is, aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession with respect to the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.7/14 min, Khasra No.331 and 332 measuring 0-07-41 hectares, situated in Chak Jagothi, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. on the averments that he along with proforma defendants was its owner and remained in possession till 1992. In the family partition which took place between him and proforma defendants, recently, the suit land fell in his share. It is averred that after 1992, the defendant had started encroaching upon the suit land, and, that when after the parties, the plaintiff went there, it was found that he had encroached upon major portion of the same. Upon this, he applied for demarcation which was carried on 11.8.1997 and it was found that the suit land was in the possession of the defendant and there were apple plants of age of 2 to 65 years standing therein. Although he had requested the defendant to surrender the possession but of no avail. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit, and, filed written statement to the plaint, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, casue of action etc. On merits, it was pleaded that he did not encroach upon the suit land, being shown as Khasra No. 331 and 332 in the settlement record. In fact, this land was the part of his land bearing old khasra No. 100 and 101, the total area of which was 2 bighas 17 biswas. In the recent settlement, new khasra No.329, 331 and 332 had been carved out, the total area of which was shown to be 0-21-15 hectares i.e. equivalent to 2 bighas 16 biswas. In the new record, he has been shgown as owner of khasra No.329 measuring only 0-13-74 hectares i.e. equivalent to 1 bigha 16 biswas, in this way his area has been reduced by 1 bigha. In the new record, he has been shgown as owner of khasra No.329 measuring only 0-13-74 hectares i.e. equivalent to 1 bigha 16 biswas, in this way his area has been reduced by 1 bigha. It was further pleaded that Khasra No.331 and 332 in fact belong to him, being part of land comprising khasra No.100 and 101 but in the settlement record those have been wrongly shown in the ownership of the plaintiff. For getting the revenue record corrected, he had applied and such proceedings are going on. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, 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 alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is premature?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action to file the present suit?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit of plaintiff is hit by provision of Section 10 CPC?OPD. 7. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiff/appellant 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 plaintiff/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherethrough, he assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 16.5.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant(s)/appellant(s), 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 16.5.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant(s)/appellant(s), against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether once it is proved that the application for correction of revenue entries as contained in Ex.DW1/A, filed by the defendant before the settlement authorities is still pending and no final orders have been passed and the records prepared during the course of the proceedings of the said application have not been approved and verified by the competent authorities, the learned courts below could base their findings and rely upon the aforesaid records prepared by DW-2? 2. Whether even if the learned courts below were of the opinion that the demarcation conducted by PW-5 is on the basis of new settlement records and not on the basis of the old revenue records, the only way open to the learned courts below was to either direct the parties to get the land demarcation as per the old revenue records or to have appointed a local commissioner to demarcate the land on the basis of the old revenue records and by not adopting this course, the learned courts below have fallen in error? 3. What is the effect of Section 171(2)(v) of the HP Land Revenue Act on the present matter especially when the record pertaining to Khasra No.331 and 332 i.e. the suit land has still not been set aside by the competent settlement authorities and the correction proceedings are still subjudice? 4. Whether, if the impugned judgments are allowed to be sustained, then, the admitted total land holdings of the plaintiff measuring 4 1/2 bighas shall be reduced by one bigha approximately and shall result in manifest injustice to the plaintiff? 5. Whether in the absence of any specific issue having been framed during the course of the trial in this behalf, the learned courts below have erred gravely while calling the plaintiff to explain as to show the land of the defendant was allegedly reduced in the settlement operation by one bigha? 6. Whether the learned courts below have erred by dealing with the case as if it was a case based on demarcation, whereas, the suit of the plaintiff is based on title and the decree for possession ought to have been passed? 7. 6. Whether the learned courts below have erred by dealing with the case as if it was a case based on demarcation, whereas, the suit of the plaintiff is based on title and the decree for possession ought to have been passed? 7. Whether the learned trial Court below has failed to frame proper and necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and this omission has resulted into the grave prejudice to the plaintiff? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 7: 8. It is not disputed that, during, the settlement proceedings, held, in the area concerned, Khasra Nos. 329, 331, and, Khasra No. 332 stood carved out, from old khasra Nos. 100 and 101, total measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff has instituted the extant suit, for possession qua the suit land, hence, on the basis of title. EX.PW1/A, exhibit whereof comprises a copy of the missal haquit, rather stood prepared after conclusion, of, the settlement proceedings, as, held in the area concerned, and, its perusal, unveils qua the suit land being owned and possessed by the plaintiff along with other co-sharers. It also carries recitals qua the suit khasra Nos. 331, and, 332, being respectively, carved out, from Khasra Nos. 264/79 and 99 min. Contrarily, the defendant claims, that the old khasra numbers of his land being Khasra No.100 and Khasra No. 101, measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas, and, that, during the drawing, of, settlement proceedings, three new khasra numbers standing carved out therefrom, i.e., khasra No. 329, 331 and 332, and, only khasra No. 329 standing shown in his ownership, and, possession, whereas, khasra Nos. 331, and, 332, stood shown erroneously in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. It is also not disputed, that, for getting the afore revenue entries, hence corrected, the defendant has instituted, a correction application, application whereof, is, subjudice before the authorities concerned. 9. From a perusal of the statements, of the witnesses examined, by the litigants concerned. for proving their respective pleas, unfoldments ensue, qua, the record prepared during settlement proceedings, and, consequent prepared revenue record, (a) rather not carrying, hence correct entries, (b) and, further qua some mistakes, standing committed by the settlement authorities, while carrying out, the settlement proceedings, in, the area concerned. Moreover, a perusal of the statement of Sh. for proving their respective pleas, unfoldments ensue, qua, the record prepared during settlement proceedings, and, consequent prepared revenue record, (a) rather not carrying, hence correct entries, (b) and, further qua some mistakes, standing committed by the settlement authorities, while carrying out, the settlement proceedings, in, the area concerned. Moreover, a perusal of the statement of Sh. Joban Dass, DW-2, underscores qua since, 1990, proceedings being under progress, on the application instituted by the defendant, for correction, of the revenue record. He further testifies qua his visiting the spot for verification, and, also his preparing the revenue papers, on the spot. Further, he rendered, a, testification qua during settlement operation, Khasra No.331 and Kh. No. 332, standing hence shown to be the parts of old Khasra No.264/79 and 99 min, however, as per moka Shajra, they are rather a part of old Khasra No. 100, and, hence the old khasra numbers 364/79 and 99 should have also been a part of new Khasra No.330. He also testified that as per, the, old revenue record, khasra No.331, and, Khasra No. 332, standing owned and possessed by the defendant, and, other co-sharers. DW-2, during, the course of his cross- examination, upon, an affirmative suggestion being put to him, by the counsel, for the defendant qua the entire records appertaining, to the settlement proceedings, drawn with respect to Roharu, Chidgaon, Tikkar, Dodra Kawar hence standing quashed and set aside, rather meted, an, affrirmative answer thereto, (c) and, when the afore affirmative answer, meted, by him, to the afore affirmative suggestion put to him, by the counsel for the plaintiff, is conjoined with an application, stnading preferred before the revenue authorities concerned, seeking correction of the revenue record, application whereof, is, yet subjudice, before the settlement authorities, (d) thereupon, rather the learned courts below not assigning any solemnity, vis-a-vis, entries carried in the revenue records, prepared after consumation, of, settlement proceedings, prima facie, do, obviously appear to not commit any gross legal fallacy. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiff, for the relief of possession, and, on the basis of title, with respect to the suit land, anvilled, upon, the revenue record, prepared after the settlement proceedings, settlement proceedings whereof stand set aside, by the High Court, hence, cannot be countenanced, by, courts of law. 10. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiff, for the relief of possession, and, on the basis of title, with respect to the suit land, anvilled, upon, the revenue record, prepared after the settlement proceedings, settlement proceedings whereof stand set aside, by the High Court, hence, cannot be countenanced, by, courts of law. 10. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by both the learned courts below, 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. Accordingly, all the substantial questions, of law are answered in favour of the defendant/respondent, and, against the plaintiff/appellant. 11. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed, and, judgments impugned before this Court are affirmed and maintained. Consequently, the plaintiff''s suit is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.