JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J —The present plaintiff-appellants are the minor sons of Sh. Ranjit Singh defendant-respondent. They filed a suit for declaration that they were owner/co-sharers in the sole possession of the suit land described in the plaint, and also sought for permanent and mandatory injunction. 2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that according to the plaintiffs the suit land was owned by them and by defendants 1 to 9 as co-sharers and all co-sharers have been alleged in Hisedari possession of different khasra numbers, but khasra No. 973, which was the suit land, was alleged to be in sole Hisedari possession of Lachhman son of Tulsi, on whose death his inheritance devolved upon Hem Rai and Lekh Raj sons and Smt. Sarsuti Devi widow of Lachhman. Plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No, 1 Babu Ram was a clever man and he in collusion with another person fraudulently secured a lease deed on a paper regarding old . khasra No. 973 at Rs 60 annual rent, which land was actually not in his possession It was also pleaded that on 9th April, 1974 defendant No. 4 Hera Raj, who was owner in possession of khasra No, 973, executed a sale deed of his share in old Khasra No. 973 in favour of plaintiffs for Rs, 3,000 and got the same registered and handed over the possession* According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 10 Ranjit Singh who was the owner of the material of the shops, standing on the suit land, gifted the material of the shops in favour of the plaintiffs, vide gift deed dated 24th July, 1980 and the plaintiffs, as such, became cosharers in the exclusive possession of the shops situated in old Khasra No. 973. It has been also pleaded that the defendant No.1 Babu Ram has been in possession of more than his share in the joint khata. 3. It was also pleaded that the defendant No, 1 Sh. It has been also pleaded that the defendant No.1 Babu Ram has been in possession of more than his share in the joint khata. 3. It was also pleaded that the defendant No, 1 Sh. Babu Ram filed a civil suit No 121/75, 7/76 titled as Babu Ram v. Ranjit Singh and others, in the Court of Sub-Judge, Dehra, for possession by demolition of buildings on old khasra No. 973, The suit was decreed on 15th July, 1977 and a decree for possession of the land comprised in khasra No 973 measuring 1 kanal 7 marlas (the suit land) by way of demolition of the structure was passed in favour of the plaintiff Babu Ram and against defendant No. I Ranjit Singh, the father of the present appellants. Through this decree, the defendant was further directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land as mentioned earlier. This decree has been assailed to be bad in law and the plaintiffs claimed that said decree did not affect their ownership and possessory rights over the suit land alongwith the structure standing thereon. 4. The suit was contested mainly by the defendant No. 1 Sh. Babu Ram. Various preliminary objections were raised by the defendant No. 1, but on merit, it has been pleaded that the suit land, as comprised in old Khasra No. 973, was in his possession and the same was leased in favour of defendant No. 10 (father of the plaintiffs) for a period of three years. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit land in the year 1971-72 even as co-sharers and, as such, they were not made parties in the previous suit. The possession of Hem Raj and others over the suit land has been denied. According to the defendant No. 1, the present suit has been filed in collusion with defendant No. 10 with a view to avoid the valid decree procured by the defendant No. 1 in the previous suit. 5. The parties were put to trial on the following issues by the trial Court : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act, conduct and deeds ? OPD-1 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 3. 5. The parties were put to trial on the following issues by the trial Court : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act, conduct and deeds ? OPD-1 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 3. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable as per preliminary objection No. 4 in the written statement ? OPD-I 4. Whether the suit is not within time ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs were co shares in respect of the suit land on the date of institution of Civil suit No. 121/75 and if so its effect ? OPP 6. If issue No. 5 is proved whether the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 121/75 passed on 15-7-1977 is nullity and not binding upon the plaintiffs ? OPP 7. Whether defendant No 10 executed a valid gift in respect of the Malba of the shop in dispute on 24-7-1980 ? OPP 8. If issue No. 7 is proved whether the decree in Civil Suit No. 121/75 passed on 1>7-1977 is rendered unexecuted ? OPP 9. Relief. Issues No, 1 and 2 were decided in the affirmative while issues No. 3 and 4 in the negative Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs while issue No 6 in the negative Issues No 7 and 9 were also decided against the plaintiffs and the suit was dismissed, 6. The aforesaid judgment and decree were assailed in an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal with costs. 7. The aforesaid judgment and decree have been assailed in the present regular Second Appeal on various pleas 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also minutely scrutinised the entire record, 9. It has been forcefully contended on behalf of the appellants that they were in occupation of the suit land as co sharers alongwith the structure standing there upon and on this account the decree passed in the earlier Civil Suit No, 121/75 was not binding upon them, and, therefore the reliefs asked for by them are to be granted in their favour. It is not so simple a matter as has been contended by the learned Counsel 10. It is not so simple a matter as has been contended by the learned Counsel 10. It is not disputed that Babu Ram defendant No 1 is also one of the co-sharer. The earlier suit was preferred by Sh. Babu Ram against Ranjit Singh (father of the plaintiffs) for possession after demolition of the structure standing thereon, on the basis of some lease executed in favour of Ranjit Singh, In that suit Hem Raj, Lekh Raj and Smt Sarsuti Devi were also the parties, that is, all other co-sharers including these persons have been made party in the earlier suit. The certified copy of the judgment of the earlier suit is also on record. Otherwise also, the decree passed in the earlier suit is not disputed. In the earlier suit, Babu Ram defendant claimed himself to be the landlord/co-sharer of the suit land and Sh. Ranjit Singh to be the tenant under him. It was on this plea that the decree for possession by demolition of the structure was granted. The suit was contested and after contest such a decree followed. Needless to say, this decree of a Civil Court is binding on the parties to that suit. 11. As per case of the plaintiff, he purchased the share through a registered sale deed on 9th April, 1974 Ex P-l (Copy of the registered sale deed) Through this document, the plaintiffs who happened to be minors purchased the share of Hem Raj (6/27 in Khasra No9 9/3) for Rs. 3,000. This deed was registered on 11th April, 1974 while the earlier suit had been registered on 9th April, 1974 prior to the registration of the sale deed. That means, during the pendency of the suit Hern Raj sold his share in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs at the maximum on the basis of this registered sale deed stepped into the shoes of Hem Raj and acquired rights in the suit land as were enjoyed by Hem Raj defendant, 12. In the earlier suit, a decree for possession in favour of Babu Ram defendant No. 1 was passed and against Ranjit Singh defendant, father of the plaintiffs This only meant that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Babu Ram and Ranjit Singh which came to an end and decree for possession in favour of Babu Ram was passed. In the earlier suit, a decree for possession in favour of Babu Ram defendant No. 1 was passed and against Ranjit Singh defendant, father of the plaintiffs This only meant that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Babu Ram and Ranjit Singh which came to an end and decree for possession in favour of Babu Ram was passed. It only reflected that Babu Ram was a co-sharer in possession of the suit land, prior to the induction of Ranjit Singh on the suit land as his tenant- Thus, it had been decided finally between the parties in that suit that possession was to be delivered in favour of Babu Ram, after demolition of structure, erected by Ranjit Singh tenant on the suit land, The present plaintiffs being the successors in—interest of Hem Raj vendor, who was a co-sharer, cannot have better right than their predecessor who has been held in the previous suit out of possession. In this view of the matter, the possession over the suit land has been rightly held to be that of Babu Ram as co«sharer prior to inducting Ranjit Singh as tenant. 13. Ranjit Singh raised some construction on the suit land which was ordered to be demolished as per decree referred to above This Ranjit Singh gifted the structure in favour of his sons (the plaintiffs). The reason was obvious This gift was made on 24th July, 1980 when the decree in the previous suit had already been passed on 15th July, 1977. Even, if for arguments sake this gift deed, copy of which on record is Ex P-29 is held to be valid, plaintiffs would be entitled to the structure standing on the suit land which is required to be dismantled as per earlier decree, 14. It is being argued now that the structures which are standing on the suit land, on account of gift, are owned by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are having some share in the suit land and, as such, they are in possession of the same which cannot be disturbed. I think such an argument, on the basis of circumstances present in this case, has to be simply rejected. 15. As pointed out earlier, at the maximum plaintiffs were owners of the structures by way of gift made by their father in their favour. I think such an argument, on the basis of circumstances present in this case, has to be simply rejected. 15. As pointed out earlier, at the maximum plaintiffs were owners of the structures by way of gift made by their father in their favour. Insofar as the suit land was concerned, they cannot be said to be in actual possession, if at all they are/because of their father. Such possession, on the basis of Civil Courts decree cannot be claimed as of right and they have no right to continue in possession of the same. 16. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs have become co-sharers in the suit land, but Babu Ram defendant No, 1 on account of Civil Courts decree has to be given possession of the suit land by dismantling the structure. This only means that Babu Ram defendant No 1 has to be put into possession of the suit land which possession he had handed over in favour of Ranjit Singh tenant, father of the plaintiffs, on account of some lease which stood determined. In the background of these circumstances, plaintiffs cannot claim as of right, to remain in possession. At the maximum, on the basis of Civil Courts decree, they can be held to be the co-sharers of the suit land on account of sale of the share of Hem Raj defendant to be out in possession. As Hem Raj defendant was not found in possession in the previous suit, plaintiffs sole remedy if at all legally available to them in case they are out of possession would be to ask for joint possession or if they can be deemed to be in joint possession to ask for partition of the suit land, in case such rights were available to them. 17. The present litigation, as has been held by two forums below, is nothing but an unsuccessful attempt, made on behalf of Ranjit Singh defendant to avoid eviction decree already passed against him, He has selected his minor sons in filing the present suit for assailing the decree against him which otherwise is final so far as he was concerned The entire present proceedings appear to have been taken in hand by Ranjit Singh himself and in order to fulfil that design, suit on behalf of the minors through their mother has been preferred 18. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and there is absolutely no occasion to interfere with the concurrent findings given by the two courts below, after correctly appreciating the facts and law in this behalf. The present appeal, as such, is dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.