IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.76 of 2010 Date of decision : September 16, 2010 Mast Ram and another …Appellants. Versus Chaitru Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Suit for possession of immoveable property was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the appellants. It was based on title. Appellants took the plea of adverse possession, which did not find favour either with the trial Court or the first Appellate Court, which was approached by the appellants, after the suit was decreed. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of first appellate Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the two Courts below and that, if properly appreciated, the evidence leads to a safe conclusion that the appellants have acquired title by prescription. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. I have gone through the record, as also the judgments of the two Courts below. 4. Evidence has rightly been appreciated. Evidence led by the appellants does not establish the plea of adverse possession. Since no substantial question of law is involved and there is concurrent finding by the two Courts below that the appellants have not acquired title by prescription, appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of, having become infructuous. September 16, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J