JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 477/99 (99) before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Mandi, H.P.. In the afore instituted civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed rendition of a decree for possession against the defendants, and, vis-a-vis, the suit land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 31/53, Khasra No. 1397, measuring 17.88 sq. meters. The afore civil suit became decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Diovision) concerned. The aggrieved defendants constituted thereagainst Civil Appeal bearing No. 46/2005, 151/05, before the learned First Appellate Court. Upon the afore Civil Appeal, the learned First Appellate Court made a verdict affirming the verdict rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) concerned. 2. The defendant becoming aggrieved therefrom, hence, are led to institute the extant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 3. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 10th May, 2010, hence, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant, against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law? Substantial question of Law No.1: 4. Ex.PA is the copy of the jamabandi, appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, and, therein neither in the column of ownership, or in the column of possession, and, nor in the column of rent, the name of the defendant(s) occur. Furthermore, though, the defendant(s) canvassed in their written statement, the plea qua theirs acquiring title, through adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit land, however, neither any issue in respect thereof, was claimed by the defendants, nor any issue in respect thereof became struck. Sequelly, also no evidence for furthering, and, supporting the afore contention, as, raised in the written statement by the defendants, rather came to be adduced. Sequelly, also no evidence for furthering, and, supporting the afore contention, as, raised in the written statement by the defendants, rather came to be adduced. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant while addressing arguments before this Court, has not raised any contention, that the omission(s) on part of the learned courts below, to frame the afore issue, has caused serious prejudice to the claim of the defendants qua the suit property, whereupon, the defendants cannot be facilitated to make any contention, vis-a-vis, non striking of the afore purported vital issue, has, resulted in gross miscarriage of justice, and, nor hence, can contend that after the afore material issue being struck, this Court proceed to adopt or recourse, the, mandate enshrined in Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. 5. As afore stated, for want of any reflections, visa- vis, the defendants, in any of the columns of the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, thereupon, obviously, the plaintiffs' suit for possession, appertaining to the suit khasra number warranted, its being decreed, as, aptly done respectively by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) concerned, through, its making a verdict, upon, civil suit No. 477/99, and, latter by the learned first Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2005. 6. Be that as it may, dehors want(s) of the afore reflections in the jamabandi appertaining to the suit khasra number, it was yet open for the defendants, to apart from, canvassing the right of theirs acquiring title, through adverse possession qua the suit kahsra number, propagation whereof remains, for the reasons aforestated, necessarily abandoned, also to propagate, that through an agreement to sell, theirs acquiring valid possession to the suit land, and, hence, theirs holding a valid title over the suit land. Even, the afore permissible plea, has, remained un-raised by the defendants in their written statement. Consequently, the concurrently recorded verdicts respectively by both the learned courts below, hence decreeing the plaintiffs' suit, warrant theirs being upheld by this Court. 7. Even otherwise, though, the defendant could proceed to cast an onslaught, vis-a-vis, the validity of the entries, occurring in the jamabandi, appertaining to the suit land, hence on all permissible legal para meters. Consequently, the concurrently recorded verdicts respectively by both the learned courts below, hence decreeing the plaintiffs' suit, warrant theirs being upheld by this Court. 7. Even otherwise, though, the defendant could proceed to cast an onslaught, vis-a-vis, the validity of the entries, occurring in the jamabandi, appertaining to the suit land, hence on all permissible legal para meters. However, the defendants, apart from making a stray contention, with respect to the validity of the entries, as, occur in the jamabandi, appertaining to the suit land, they did not, make any counter claim, with a prayer therein, that the entries in the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land being quashed, and, set aside. Consequently, for wants of the afore endeavour, rather the rebuttable presumption of truth acquired by Ex. PA, exhibit whereof is a copy jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, does acquire conclusivity. 8. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, are 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. Substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the respondents, and, against the appellant. 9. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the 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.