Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 18.3.2006 of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul (hereinafter described as the first appellate Court) vide which the appeal of the defendant-Malhu Ram (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mahendergarh (referred to hereinafter as the trial Court) were set aside. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction pleading that he was owner in possession of the land in question as a co-sharer, but the defendant had got the revenue entries changed and got shown himself to be in possession and that these entries were illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights. It was further pleaded that the defendant had been interfering in the possession of the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid wrong entries and thus, it was prayed that he be restrained from interfering and also from cutting the trees standing in the suit land. 2. The defendant had appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was pleaded that earlier a similar suit with the same prayer had been filed by the appellant which was decided against him on 8.12.1999 by the first appellate Court. He had claimed that he was owner in possession of the land in question by way of adverse possession as he was occupying the suit land since 1955. It was pleaded that the instant suit was simple suit for declaration without the relief of possession of the suit land and, therefore, the same was not maintainable. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? opp 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for? opp 3. Whether entries rapat rojnamacha No.95 dated 22.10.1970 and subsequent entries are illegal, null and void? opp 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? opd 5. Whether suit is not maintainable in present form? opd 6. Whether suit is hit by res judicata? opd 7. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his act and conduct? opd 8. opp 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? opd 5. Whether suit is not maintainable in present form? opd 6. Whether suit is hit by res judicata? opd 7. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his act and conduct? opd 8. Whether suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? opd 9. Whether suit is time barred? opd 10. Relief. 3. After appraisal of the evidence on record, the trial Court partly decreed the suit of the appellant, whereas in appeal, its findings were reversed by the first appellate Court, giving rise to the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are erroneous and deserve to be set aside. He pleaded that since the appellant had assailed the revenue entries, the suit was maintainable. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the whole record. 5. Concededly, as per the pleadings of the parties, the defendant was in possession of the suit property. The appellant was, therefore, required to make an appropriate prayer for declaration and consequential relief of possession. It is a settled principle of law that mere suit for declaration and permanent injunction without seeking relief of possession is not maintainable. 6. That apart, there is no material on record to show that as to how the appellant could have been granted injunction as even as per his own pleadings, the defendant was in settled possession of the suit land. The revenue record supports the plea of the defendant that he was in possession of the disputed property and, therefore, the prayer of the appellant for injunction was incapable of being answered. Therefore, the first appellate Court was right in discarding the plea of the appellant and the suit has rightly been dismissed. Thus, no question of law,much less a substantial question of law, arises for determination by this Court. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. All pending applications are also dismissed in view of the above.