JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 27-K/ 13 of 2002. 2.Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for the sake of convenience) had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant” for the sake of convenience) from raising any construction and causing any interference in the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 10/14 min, bearing Khasra No. 424, measuring 0-8 biswas, situated in Village Bisha, Pargana Bagri Kalan, District Solan, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 199 1-92 and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the construction if she succeeds in raising the construction during the pendency of the suit and restoring the nature of the land in its original position. According to the plaintiff, he has purchased the suit land and other lands from Shri Bansi Dhar etc. vide registered sale deed No. 75, dated 30.05.1991, which was duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Kandaghat. The defendant being stranger, in the month of February, 1996 with an intention to grab the portion of the suit land, started digging the foundations etc. of the house. She was requested not to do so. The demarcation was carried out by the revenue authorities. A legal notice was served upon the defendant on 05.02.1996, to which reply was filed on 12.02.1996. The demarcation was carried out by the Field Kanungo on 17.04.1996. It is in these circumstances that the present suit was filed. 3.The suit was contested by the defendant. According to her, she has raised the construction on the land, owned and possessed by her and the same has been completed up to roof level long back much prior to the filing of the present suit. The demarcation given by the Field Kanungo was one sided. In the alternative, she has pleaded that in case it is found that the construction has been raised in the land, owned by the plaintiff, in that event, the plaintiff has no concern with the same as the defendant has been possessing the same alongwith other land adjoining to it openly, adversely and to the knowledge of the rightful owners continuously and without interruption since 1975. According to her, whole of the land comprised in Khasra No. 424 is in her possession since 1975. Earlier, Shri Bhagat Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendant came into possession of the suit land in the year 1975, when he purchased other land adjoining to it from Shri Devi Ram and Krishan Dutt etc. on 5.12.1975. Shri Bhagat Ram handed over the possession of the suit land to the defendant in the year 1978. 4.Replication was filed. The issues were framed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan H.P. on 04.10.1997. Learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. decreed the suit on 31.05.2001. The defendant was restrained permanently from raising any construction and causing any interference in the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 10/14 min, bearing Khasra No. 424, measuring 0-8 biswas, situated in Village Bisha, pargana Bagri Kalan, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. vide jamabandi for the year 199 1-92 and a decree for mandatory injunction was also passed against the defendant and the defendant was directed to remove the construction material from the spot and dismantle the construction if she has raised any construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 5.The defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. against the judgment dated 31.05.2001. Learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. partly accepted the appeal on 0 1.08.2002. Learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. held that since the defendant is in settled possession of the suit land, she could not be dispossessed from the suit land except by following due process of law. The decree of permanent injunction qua interference and mandatory injunction to remove the construction material granted by the learned trial Court was set aside. According to the decree, the defendant could be evicted only by way of due process of law by way of filing the suit for possession along with demarcation report and Tatima. The judgment of the trial Court was modified to this extent. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. According to the decree, the defendant could be evicted only by way of due process of law by way of filing the suit for possession along with demarcation report and Tatima. The judgment of the trial Court was modified to this extent. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 14.11.2002: “Whether the lower appellate Court has mis­construed and not considered oral statements of DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 and statements of PW-1 and PW-3 consisting of documents Exhibits PW-1/A and PW-1/B and other documentary evidence correctly and as such, wrongly came to findings contrary to those recorded by the trial Court?” 6.Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of substantial question of law, has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. According to him, learned 1st Appellate Court has come to wrong conclusion that the defendant could be evicted only by way of due process of law by filing the suit for possession along with demarcation report and Tatima. He then argued that the learned 1st Appellate Court has rejected all the contentions of the defendant with regard to title, non-joinder, resjudicata, limitation, gift deed and despite that, he has modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 7.Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court. 8.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments carefully. 9.Plaintiff has appeared as PW- 1. According to him, the suit land is situated on Khasra No. 424 and the area of the suit land is 8 biswas. According to him, initially the suit land was in possession of Bansi Dhar in the year 1991. He purchased 1/3rd share of Shri Bansi Dhar and 2/3rd share is owned and possessed by Shri Hem Dutt and Bhajana Nand and after purchase, he had become owner in possession of the suit land. According to him, the defendant has no legal right, title or interest over Khasra No. 424. According to him, the defendant started digging the suit land for raising construction. A notice was issued to her vide Ex. PW­1/A. The defendant replied to the same vide Ex. PW-1/B. He further deposed that thereafter the suit land was also demarcated. According to him, the defendant has no legal right, title or interest over Khasra No. 424. According to him, the defendant started digging the suit land for raising construction. A notice was issued to her vide Ex. PW­1/A. The defendant replied to the same vide Ex. PW-1/B. He further deposed that thereafter the suit land was also demarcated. He has also stated that defendant is owner of the adjoining land. He further stated that an old house was constructed over 2 biswas of the suit land by the owners of the land from whom he had purchased the land. According to him, the defendant has no right over the vacant portion of the land. He further testified that after filing the suit, the defendant raised further construction and also constructed the wall upto lintel level and also placed windows. 10.Shri Kushal Nand Sharma has appeared as PW-2. He has testified that the plaintiff had purchased the land from Shri Bansi Dhar in his presence and has stated that sale deed was also executed. He also deposed that the sale deed was written by Shri Bhajna Nand, Document Writer and contents of the sale deed were read over to the vendor and vendee and they have signed the sale deed after admitting the contents of the same as correct. He further testified that he has signed the sale deed Ex. PW-2/A as a marginal witness. 11.PW-3 Shri Bansi Dhar has stated that he, his sister, mother and Shri Bhajna Nand are owners in possession of the suit land. According to him, Shri Raghwa Nand is related to him and the land was sold to Shri Raghwa Nand by way of sale deeds Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B. According to him, 8-9 bighas of land was sold to Shri Raghwa Nand. Shri Raghwa Nand came into possession of the suit land, in which defendant used to reside. One kitchen was also constructed adjoining to the house since the time of his grand father. He further testified that his grand father had given the land and kitchen to the defendant at the @ ‘50/- per month and the defendant has no legal right over the vacant portion of the suit land. 12.Shri Inder Dutt Sharma, Junior Engineer has appeared as PW-4. He has stated that he was posted as Junior Engineer in the Office of Block Development Officer, Kandaghat since November, 1998. 12.Shri Inder Dutt Sharma, Junior Engineer has appeared as PW-4. He has stated that he was posted as Junior Engineer in the Office of Block Development Officer, Kandaghat since November, 1998. He has stated that the defendant had applied for the construction of the house in the year 1995 and it was mentioned in the application that defendant intended to raise construction in Khasra No. 473, Mauja Bisha and the defendant was recorded owner in possession of Khasra No. 473 and the money was sanctioned for the construction of the house. 13.Shri Sanjay Sood, Junior Engineer has appeared as DW- 1. He has testified that he was posted in Kandaghat as Junior Engineer and he used to maintain the record. According to him, Village Bisha falls under the jurisdiction of Assistant Engineer. He further stated that a meter was installed on 06.09.1987. The signature of defendant were obtained as Consumer of Meter KTD-279. 14.DW-2 Shri Mohan Lal has stated that defendant is known to him and her husband, namely, Uma Dutt is also known to him. The defendant used to reside in Village Bisha and has stated that he used to perform the work of Mason and in the month of March, 1997, he has undertaken the construction work of defendant. According to him, six rooms were constructed and the work continued for 21 days. He also deposed that one Shri Roop Singh also worked with him. He also stated that the remuneration was paid to him by the defendant. 15.DW-3, Shri Roop Singh has stated that the defendant is known to him. He also stated that the husband of the defendant is also known to him. According to him, the defendant and her husband used to reside in Village Bisha and he used to perform the work of mason in the year 1996 and the house of defendant was constructed. According to him, he has worked for 21 days and five rooms were constructed 16. Smt. Kanta Devi has appeared as DW-4. According to her, she has constructed the house on her own land and the plot was levelled within 8 to 15 days and no one raised any objection when she raised the construction. According to her, the construction work was stopped because material of construction was not available and lintel was not constructed on account of shortage of money. According to her, she has constructed the house on her own land and the plot was levelled within 8 to 15 days and no one raised any objection when she raised the construction. According to her, the construction work was stopped because material of construction was not available and lintel was not constructed on account of shortage of money. According to her, Shri Bhagat Ram had given her house and she used to reside in the old house since 20-22 years and prior to her, Sh. Bhagat Ram used to reside in the house. She has stated that Sh. Bhagat Ram had given the house to her by way of gift deed alongwith land. She denied that she was a tenant in the house. According to her, the electricity meter has been installed in the house and the kitchen was constructed 12-13 years ago. She has further deposed that she is owner of the land where she intended to construct the new house. She has stated that Khasra No. 424 and adjoining to the suit land, Khasra No. 423 is situated, in which she had raised her house. 17.According to the sale deeds Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. P-1, copy of Jamabandi for the year 199 1-92, the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is established. The plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant has rightly been rejected by both the Courts below. 18.DW-2, Shri Mohan Lal has not stated that the possession of the defendant has become adverse to the knowledge of true owners. DW-3, Shri Roop Singh did not disclose anything that the possession of the defendant has become hostile to the true owners. DW-4, Smt. Kanta Devi has also not stated that her possession has become adverse to the legal rights of the true owners. 19.In Ex. P-1, copy of jamabandi, it is specifically stated that the plaintiff has purchased the suit land from one co-owner, namely, Shri Bansi Dhar to the extent of 1/3rd share and mutation No. 1576 was also sanctioned. The name of defendant does not figure in the ownership as well as in the cultivation column of the suit land as per jamabandi Ex. P-1. The defendant has not placed any tangible evidence to rebut Ex. P-1. The name of defendant does not figure in the ownership as well as in the cultivation column of the suit land as per jamabandi Ex. P-1. The defendant has not placed any tangible evidence to rebut Ex. P-1. Learned 1st Appellate Court has rejected the plea of defendant with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties, resjudicata, limitation as well as gift deed. Learned 1st Appellate Court has also rejected the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has no right to file the suit by relying on Ex. P-1. However, surprisingly, learned 1st Appellate Court has erred in law by stating that the decree for mandatory injunction by demolition of superstructure could not be passed by the learned trial Court and the defendant could not be evicted. 20.Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction and causing any interference in the land comprised in Khata No. 10/14 min, bearing Khasra No. 424, measuring 0-8 biswas and also for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to remove the construction, if she succeeds in raising the construction during the pendency of the suit. Learned 1st Appellate Court has misread the statements of PW- 1 to PW-4 and DW-1 to DW-4. The suit has been filed to restrain the defendant from raising any construction with regard to plaintiff’s land in Khasra No. 424. There was no dispute, as rightly argued by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant with regard to possession of the defendant on the house in question. Learned 1st Appellate Court has upheld the findings of the trial Court concerning the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant. Plaintiff, on the basis of sale deeds Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B and copy of jamabandi Ex. P-1 has cogently established that he was owner in possession of the suit land and in view of this, the relief of injunction ought to have been granted in his favour. Stand of DW-4 was also that she was raising construction on her own land, as per the reply filed vide Ex. PW-1/B. She has also admitted in cross- examination that she has no concern over the land comprised in Khasra No. 424. It is also evident from the statements of DW-2 Shri Mohan Lal, Mason that the construction was raised in the month of March, 1997. PW-1/B. She has also admitted in cross- examination that she has no concern over the land comprised in Khasra No. 424. It is also evident from the statements of DW-2 Shri Mohan Lal, Mason that the construction was raised in the month of March, 1997. Thus, the construction has been raised by the defendant during the pendency of the suit, which was filed on 04.06.1996. 21.It has come on record that demarcation was carried out by the Field Kanungo on 14.07.1996 in the presence of both the parties. This aspect has also been overlooked by the 1st Appellate Court. 22.Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the observations made by the 1st appellate Court in the judgment that the defendant could not be dispossessed from the suit land except due process of law, are set aside. It is held that the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit against the defendant, whereby she was restrained permanently from raising any construction in the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 10/14 min, bearing Khasra No. 424, measuring 0-8 biswas, situated in Village Bisha, Pargana Bagri Kalan, District Solan, H.P. and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the construction material from the spot and dismantle the construction raised on the suit land during the pendency of suit. Similarly, the observations made in the judgment that the defendant could be evicted only by filing a suit for possession along with demarcation report and Tatima are also set aside, being contrary to oral and documentary evidence, discussed above. 23.Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court, whereby it has modified the decree of the trial Court vide judgment dated 01.08.2002 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored in its entirety. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.