V.K. Sharma, J.

1. In this appeal arising out of concurrent findings of fact, challenge is laid by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008, of the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 91/05-47/08 titled Gurdas and Anr. v. Devi Singh and Ors., whereby the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.2005, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lahaul-Spiti at Keylong, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2001 titled Devi Singh and Ors. v. Gurdas and Anr., for grant of a decree of declaration with consequential relief of injunction and in the alternative for possession, filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, was dismissed, thereby affirming the findings returned by the learned trial Court.

2. The suit was initially filed by S/Shri Devi Singh, Prem Singh, Prem Lal, Bir Singh and Sham Lal, sons of Shri Roop Dass, son of Shri Parnand against Shri Gurdas and Shri Devi Dass, sons of Shri Parnand. Later on, on the death of plaintiff No. 3, Shri Prem Lal, his legal representatives, namely Kiran and others (respondents-plaintiffs No. 3 to 7) were brought on record to represent his estate as involved in the present appeal. Admittedly, late Shri Roop Dass, father of the original plaintiffs, was real brother of the defendants Shri Gurdas and Shri Devi Dass.

3. The dispute between the parties concerns the land measuring 2-3-0 bighas being ? share of the land measuring 4-6-0 bighas comprising of Khata No. 108, Khatauni No. 148, Khasra Nos. 67, 76, 96 and 97, plots 4, vide jamabandi for the year 19991-92, situate in village and Kothi Goshal, Tehsil Lahaul, District Lahaul and Spiti, which shall here-in-after be referred to as 'the suit land'.

4. Bereft of details the facts pleaded by the parties are that according to the plaintiffs, the suit land was owned by their father Shri Roop Dass and after his death in the year 1969, it was inherited by them as owners in possession thereof in equal shares on the basis of mutation of inheritance sanctioned in their favour. However, the defendants in connivance with the revenue officials got mutation No. 148, dated 17.5.1998, sanctioned in their favour, whereby, they have been recorded as owners in possession of the suit land. Though a review petition was filed against this mutation, yet since the defendants started interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, they were constrained to file the suit.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants on preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel, limitation and jurisdiction. On merits, the case set up by the defendants was that Shri Roop Dass, father of the plaintiffs left his native place during his life time and settled as 'Ghar Jawain' at village Kirting, which is far away from the suit land. The plaintiffs also lived with their father in village Kirting. The defendants who are brothers of Shri Roop Dass, are coming in cultivating possession of the suit land since the marriage of Shri Roop Dass in the year 1952, when he left his native place and since then their possession is adverse, continuous, absolute, open and peaceful and they have become owners thereof by adverse possession.

6. The plaintiffs by filing replication refuted the case pleaded by the defendants and instead reiterated the averments set up in the plaint.

7. On the above pleadings the parties went to trial on the following issues:

1. Whether the defendants are owners of suit land by way of adverse possession? - OPD.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct? -OPD.

3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? - OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? - OPD.

5. Relief.

8. After the parties led evidence and were heard by the learned trial Court, the suit was decreed for the alternative relief of possession. The matter was carried in appeal by the defendants to the Court of the learned District Judge,