JUDGMENT : The instant regular second appeal has been maintained by appellant, Shri Tulsi Ram, who was plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “original plaintiff”), but, during the pendency of the instant appeal, he died, now the appeal is being pursued by his legal representatives. The original plaintiff maintained a suit against the respondents herein, who were defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”), for declaration and injunction as a consequential relief. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said suit, vide its judgment dated 27.11.2004, passed in Civil Suit No. 75 of 2001, so the original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 17.03.2008, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2005. 2. The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under: 2(a). The original plaintiff maintained a suit seeking declaration and injunction against the defendants. The original plaintiff pleaded that the land comprised under Khewat No. 74/70, Khatauni No. 88, Khasra No. 283, measuring 2-14-6 bighas, situate at Mouja Khiuri-Abal, HB No. 282, Pargana Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the suit land”), is recorded under the joint ownership and possession of the original plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and one Sh. Jindu and defendant No. 1 is reflected as owner to the extent of 1/3rd share and now defendant No. 2, on the premise of alleged sale deed, which entry is not admitted to be correct. It is contended that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land before the settlement operation and he is in cultivating possession. It is further contended that taking advantage of the wrongful entry existing in favour of defendant No. 1, during the month of September, 1987, he tried to forcibly occupy and cultivate the suit land, but he was not allowed to do the same by the original plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 neither asked for joint possession nor took any steps in this regard. Resultantly, w.e.f. September, 1987, the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land became open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile and to the full knowledge of defendant No. 1. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 neither asked for joint possession nor took any steps in this regard. Resultantly, w.e.f. September, 1987, the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land became open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile and to the full knowledge of defendant No. 1. During the month of September, 1999, the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land matured into absolute possession and the right, title and interest of defendant No. 1 over the suit land extinguished. It is further averred that through sale deed No. 675, dated 24.05.2001, defendant No. 1, without any right, title and interest, sold the suit land to defendant No. 2, which is not only wrong but illegal. It is prayed that the alleged sale deed be declared wrong, illegal and incorrect, having no binding effect upon the rights of the original plaintiff over the suit land. On 16.06.2001, defendant No. 2, under the garb of the above sale deed and in connivance with defendant No. 1, started unlawful interference over the peaceful possession of the original plaintiff upon the suit land and also threatened to occupy the same by raising construction over the land in question. When the defendants did not resist from their acts, the original plaintiff filed a suit against them. 2(b). The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement/counter claim, wherein it is alleged that the parties have interest over the suit land as joint co-sharers. It is contended that defendant No. 2 purchased the share of defendant no. 1 and mutation to this effect also stood attested. It is denied that the original plaintiff was in cultivation possession over the suit land prior to settlement. It is admitted that the original plaintiff is a co-sharer having joint interest with defendant No. 1, so there was no occasion for defendant No. 1 to take forcible possession from the original plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, by selling his share to defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 stepped into the shoes of defendant No. 1. It is averred that the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land is only of co-sharer, which is subject to partition, so the question of plaintiff’s becoming owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession does not at all arise. It is averred that the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land is only of co-sharer, which is subject to partition, so the question of plaintiff’s becoming owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession does not at all arise. Defendant No. 2, by filing counter claim in his written statement, pleaded that the suit land be partitioned by metes and bounds. Lastly, the dismissal of the suit filed by the original plaintiff was sought. 3. The original plaintiff, by filing replication, denied and refuted the averments made in the written statement/counter claim and reiterated and reasserted his stand taken in the plaint. 4. The learned Trial Court on 06.03.2002 framed the following issues for determination and adjudication: “1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the sale deed No. 675 dated 24.5.2001 and mutation No. 310 dated 12.6.2001 is wrong, illegal and unlawful as alleged. If so its effect? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction? OPP 4. Whether the defendants No. 1 and 2 are entitled for their respective shares in the suit property? OPD/Counter claimant. 5. Whether the defendants are entitled for possession of the suit land by way of partition? OPD/Counter claimant. 6. Relief.” 5. After deciding issues No. 1 to 3 against the original plaintiff, issue No. 4 in favour of the defendants and issue No. 5 against the defendants, the suit of the original plaintiff was dismissed. Subsequently, the original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was also dismissed, vide impugned judgment dated 17.03.2008, hence the present regular second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following 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 the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law? 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and have carefully gone through the records. 7. Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the LRs of the deceased appellant has argued that the law on adverse possession is very clear that the suit is maintainable on behalf of the person, who is in adverse possession. 7. Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the LRs of the deceased appellant has argued that the law on adverse possession is very clear that the suit is maintainable on behalf of the person, who is in adverse possession. He has further argued that the adverse possession started during the month of September, 1987 and ultimately the original plaintiff became absolute owner-in-possession of the suit land during the month of September, 1999. He has further argued that the adverse possession of the original plaintiff continued till the time the suit was filed. He has argued that the learned Court below has committed perversity in not taking into consideration the evidence and not appreciating the documents correctly, so the instant appeal be allowed. In order to fetch lateral support to his arguments, the learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Jaram Singh vs. Sate of H.P. & others, Current Law Journal (Himachal Pradesh) 2005 (Suppl.) 90; & 2. Satish Kumar & others vs. Narinder Kumar & others, Current Law Journal (Himachal Pradesh) 2007 (Suppl.) 169. He has further argued that the plea of ouster was specifically taken, but the learned Trial Court below, without discussing the same, has dismissed the suit. In these circumstances, the appeal is required to be remanded back to the learned Trial Court below for framing an issue on complete ouster of the defendants from the suit land, as it has been specifically pleaded in the plaint by the original plaintiff, and render its findings thereon. He has drawn attention of this Court to a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Smt. Bindi Devi and others vs. Jagat Ram, 2021(2) Him L.R. (HC) 870, wherein it has been held that in concurrent findings also the High Court can interfere. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the case be remanded back for adjudicating the plea of ouster, which was specifically taken by the original plaintiff before the Court of lowest rung. 8. Conversely, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that one co-sharer is also trustee of the other and the ouster is required to be pleaded and proved, which is not done in the instant case. He has argued that the statement of Smt. Prabhi Devi is not reliable, as she is sister-in-law of the original plaintiff. Conversely, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that one co-sharer is also trustee of the other and the ouster is required to be pleaded and proved, which is not done in the instant case. He has argued that the statement of Smt. Prabhi Devi is not reliable, as she is sister-in-law of the original plaintiff. He has further argued that in the settlement adverse possession of the original plaintiff was not recorded. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal sans merits, deserves dismissal and may be dismissed. 9. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the LRs of the original appellant has argued that adverse inference is required to be drawn against the defendants. He has relied upon a verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties I have gone through the record carefully. 11. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original plaintiff is that the original plaintiff specifically pleaded complete ouster of the defendants from the suit land, but, the learned Trial Court ignored such pleadings and did not frame any issue qua the same. The pleading of complete ouster of the defendants, as per the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, is further fortified by the examination of the original plaintiff, wherein he stated that the attempt of the defendants to cause interference over the suit land was dodged by him way back in May, 1988, and thereafter, the defendants neither caused interference over the suit land nor took any steps to gain possession over the suit land, so ultimately the possession of the original plaintiff matured and became absolute during the month of May, 2000, i.e. after twelve years. 12. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it fit to examine the above moot question, whereupon the whole case of the original plaintiff pivots. Thus, this Court need not to dig deep into the other issues and firstly need to examine whether the original plaintiff specifically averred in his plaint “complete ouster of the defendants”, followed by evidence to this effect and whether the learned Trial Court proceeded without examining such a plea of the original plaintiff? 13. Thus, this Court need not to dig deep into the other issues and firstly need to examine whether the original plaintiff specifically averred in his plaint “complete ouster of the defendants”, followed by evidence to this effect and whether the learned Trial Court proceeded without examining such a plea of the original plaintiff? 13. A perusal of the plaint filed by the original plaintiff would make it clear that the plea of complete ouster had been made by the original plaintiff in his plaint. Relevant para of the plaint is extracted hereunder for the sake of ready reference: “3. That taking undue advantage of the entries appearing in the name of defendant No. 1 in the revenue record, showing him as joint owner to the extent of 1/3rd share (hereinafter shall be referred to as suit land), the defendant No. 1 came to the suit land in the month of Sep. 1987 and tried to forcibly occupy and cultivate the suit land without any right, title or interest, but his such attempt was foiled with the iron hands by the plaintiff and he was not allowed to enter into the suit land, whereafter he left blanket from there and thereafter never asked for delivery of joint possession to him nor any steps in this regard were taken by him. Thus from September, 1987, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is open, peaceful, continuous, hostile, uninterrupted, exclusive and notorious to the full knowledge and complete ouster of defendant No. 1 and the same had ripened and perfected into absolute title in September, 1999 and after September 1999, the plaintiff has become the full and exclusive owner of the suit land and all right, title and interest of the defendant No. 1 in the suit land stood lost and extinguished in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of his adverse possession. Thus it is prayed that the plaintiff, in view of the above facts, be declared to have become the absolute owner by virtue of his adverse possession of the suit land, liable to be recorded in the revenue records, as such by eliminating the entry from the column of ownership of the defendant No. 1, which is prima facie wrong, illegal incorrect and void.” The above pleadings of the original plaintiff were only reiterated by him while he was being examined in the learned Trial Court. However, a bare perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Court reveals that though an issue qua adverse possession had been framed, but no issue qua complete ouster of the defendants had been framed. In this situation, this Court finds it difficult, despite the fact that the matter is pending disposal before this High Court for the last more than thirteen years, to ignore the above facet of the case and thus the matter needs to be relegated to the learned Trial Court to frame an issue of complete ouster of the defendants and render its findings thereon or to give its findings on the plea of ouster, as the parties know their case when they led the evidence. 14. Noticeably, the original plaintiff, while appearing in the witness-box, as PW-1, deposed that he alongwith the defendant and Jindu have been wrongly shown in the revenue records as co-owners in possession of the suit land. As per the original plaintiff, he has been cultivating the suit land prior to settlement. He has further stated that about sixteen years back, during the month of Bhadon, defendant Chamaru started digging the suit land and tried to possess it, however, he did not allow him to do so. Since then the defendants never tried to forcibly possess the suit land, so his possession over the suit land is open, peaceful, continuous, notorious, uninterrupted and hostile to the full knowledge of the defendants. Defendant Chamaru sold the suit land to defendant No. 2 when he failed in his attempt to forcibly possess the suit land, so ultimately he (the original plaintiff) filed the suit to procure a stay order. The original plaintiff further stated that he has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and the sale of the suit land by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is wrong and without any right, title and interest. The wife of the original plaintiff and Smt. Prabhi Devi were present on the suit land, when defendant No. 1 tried to possess the suit land. The original plaintiff placed on record jamabandi for the year 1998- 99. The original plaintiff, in his cross-examination, deposed that Gusain was his grand-father and he had three sons, i.e., Bhader, Jindu and Karam Singh. Defendant No. 1, Chamaru, is son of Bhader and he is son of Jindu. The original plaintiff placed on record jamabandi for the year 1998- 99. The original plaintiff, in his cross-examination, deposed that Gusain was his grand-father and he had three sons, i.e., Bhader, Jindu and Karam Singh. Defendant No. 1, Chamaru, is son of Bhader and he is son of Jindu. He has further deposed that at Muhal Khiuri and Beggi all the three brothers have joint land. The suit land has been partitioned amongst them through family arrangement. Land measuring 4-6-9 bighas situate at Baggi is in his possession and he feigned ignorance to the land in possession of Jindu and Chamaru. He admitted that the suit land has not been partitioned amongst them by regular process of law. As per the original plaintiff, the suit land has not been partitioned during consolidation in the year 1963 and settlement in 1966. 15. The statement of the original plaintiff is fortified by Smt. Prabhi Devi, while she appeared in the witness-box as PW- 2. She stated that she has seen the suit land, i.e., one and half bighas and the original plaintiff cultivates the same. Around 16 years back, defendant No. 1, Chamaru, tried to forcibly possess the same by digging the same. As per this witness, wife of the original plaintiff stopped defendant No. 2 from digging the suit land. The original plaintiff still cultivates the suit land, thus he has become the owner of the suit land. 16. No doubt, the instant is a case of concurrent findings, however, this Court can interfere in cases of concurrent findings. Admittedly, the general rule is that the High Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, but this rule is not absolute. A coordinate Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in Smt. Bindi Devi and others vs. Jagat Ram, 2021 (2) Him L.R. (HC) 870, relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 2843-2844 of 2010, titled as Nazir Mohamed vs. J. Kamala and others decided on 27th August, 2020. Relevant excerpt whereof is ad under: “37(iv). The general rule is, that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. 2843-2844 of 2010, titled as Nazir Mohamed vs. J. Kamala and others decided on 27th August, 2020. Relevant excerpt whereof is ad under: “37(iv). The general rule is, that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognized exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” Considering the ratio of the judgment above, the same is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in the instant case the learned Courts below have ignored the vital aspect of the pleadings, wherein the original plaintiff raised the plea of complete ouster of the defendants, resultantly no findings have been rendered on this aspect of the case. In such circumstances, the instant case is necessarily to be remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court to examine such aspect of the case, as the learned First Appellate Court should have given findings on all the issues, including the issue of ouster and the non framing of the issue of ouster is of no consequence, as the parties known their case. However, the findings on all the aspects are required to be given by the learned First Appellate Court, after analyzing all the facts of the case in hand. 17. In addition to the above facet, i.e., “complete ouster of the defendants”, the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original plaintiff argued that the original plaintiff has become owner-in-possession over the suit land by way of adverse possession. 17. In addition to the above facet, i.e., “complete ouster of the defendants”, the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original plaintiff argued that the original plaintiff has become owner-in-possession over the suit land by way of adverse possession. As observed above, the learned First Appellate Court was required to give analytical and complete findings on all the facts, including the factum of ouster, which was specifically pleaded and evidence to this effect was also led by the parties in the learned Trial Court, but the learned First Appellate Court has failed to consider it and give a thoughtful discussion upon this facet of the case followed by findings, after considering the evidence, specifically the evidence of Smt. Prabhi Devi, who stated with regard to ouster of the defendants and also the evidence on record with regard to possession of all the co-sharers at three different places of their alleged joint land form the last many many years. 18. Now, coming to the aspect of adverse possession. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, he by examining PW-2, Smt. Prabhi Devi, wanted to prove the date wherefrom the possession of the original plaintiff became adverse over the suit land. Defendant No. 1 sold his share of the land to defendant No. 2 and in such circumstances, the actual position qua the possession over the suit land would only be known to defendant No. 1. Defendant No.1, while appearing in the witness-box as DW-1, deposed that he sold his share of the land from the suit land to defendant No. 2, the suit land has not been partitioned and he simply further stated that no quarrel qua the suit land ever took place with the original plaintiff. On the other hand, the original plaintiff raised the plea of complete ouster of defendant No. 1 by specific pleadings, which are supported with evidence. In the given situation, the learned First Appellate Court should have examined this aspect of the case, but unfortunately it escaped and went unnoticed. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar & others vs. Narinder Kumar & others, Current Law Journal (Himachal Pradesh) 2007 (Suppl.) 169, held in paras No. 6, 9 and 10 as under: “6. The first appellate Court is duty bound to discuss all the contentions raised by the parties. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar & others vs. Narinder Kumar & others, Current Law Journal (Himachal Pradesh) 2007 (Suppl.) 169, held in paras No. 6, 9 and 10 as under: “6. The first appellate Court is duty bound to discuss all the contentions raised by the parties. It is bound to undertake detailed examination and critical appraisal of facts before it and cannot mechanically reaffirm the findings of the learned trial Court. Reference is being made to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kanwal Nain Sachdeva and others, 1999(9) SCC 193 , where it has been held by the Supreme Court in para 3 as under:- “The High Court dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order stating that no case had been made out for interfering in the well reasoned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In our opinion, the High Court ought to have discussed the merits of the contentions raised by the insurance Company especially when it was dealing with the first appeal against the order of the Tribunal.” … … … … … … … 9. Precedents on this point need not be multiplied as the law is clear and well settled that first appeal is a valuable right and the evidence has to be analysed clearly and precisely and precedents applied judicially. 10. I find from the judgment of the appellate Court that no such attempt has been made. Even the trial Court has gone awry by just mentioning the evidence and the law and making no attempt on critical appraisal of the facts and law before it. In the circumstances, the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge (2), Kangra for decisi8on afresh in accordance with law. He will keep in mind the directions of the Supreme Court that all the issues, facts and law should be dealt with. … … … … The above ratio of the law is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in the instant case the learned First Appellate Court ignored the vital aspect of the case and proceeded to mechanically concur with the opinion of the learned Trial Court. … … … … The above ratio of the law is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in the instant case the learned First Appellate Court ignored the vital aspect of the case and proceeded to mechanically concur with the opinion of the learned Trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court is required to go through the entire records/evidence, as the learned First Appellate Court ignored the vital aspect of the case, now the case is to be remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court to give findings on all the facts, including the factum of ouster, which was specifically pleaded and evidence to this effect was also led by the parties, so at this stage this Court finds that as the parties were knowing their case, therefore, non-framing of issue by the learned Trial Court qua the ouster of the defendants from the suit land is of no consequence, but the learned First Appellate Court has to give its findings on the issue of ouster of the defendants from the suit land, as the main thrust of the original plaintiff, as emerges, is upon the complete ouster of the defendants from the suit land. 19. Though, the learned Counsel for the original plaintiff and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 have cited few more judicial pronouncements, but the same are of no worth, as this Court is of the opinion that the case is to be remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court for examining the plea of “complete ouster of the defendants” from the suit land and rendering its decision thereon, so the other judgments, as cited, are not discussed deliberately. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the learned Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law, so the only substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 21. After having discussed the entire gamut of the matter applying the relevant law on the subject, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal has merits and the same is allowed. 21. After having discussed the entire gamut of the matter applying the relevant law on the subject, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal has merits and the same is allowed. In aftermath, the matter is remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court to consider the factum of complete ouster of defendant No. 1 from the suit land and render detailed findings in this regard. As the dispute dates back to the year 2001, the learned First Appellate Court is expected to decide it at the earliest. 22. In view of the above the appeal is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. 23. The parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 4-10-2021.