JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2009. 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) has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction as consequential relief under Sections 34 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act. According to the plaintiff, his father late Nihalu Ram died in a landslide, leaving being his widow late Janki Devi and three minor children, Roshan Lal, Mirja Ram and Kanta Devi. The then his Highness of Mandi State sanctioned pension in favour of his mother, Smt. Janki Devi. Defendant No. 5, Roshan Lal was authorized by Smt. Janki Devi to collect pension amount on her behalf from the Treasury Office, Mandi. The defendant No. 5 used to receive pension amount up to 1971. Smt. Janki Devi died in the year 1994. Thereafter, the defendant No. 5 fraudulently got himself declared to be the sole legal heir of late Janki Devi, widow of Nihalu and has received the entire arrears of the pension by ignoring the other legal heirs, namely, plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 6, namely, Smt. Kanta Devi. According to the plaintiff, the pension was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Janki Devi and not in favour of defendant No. 5. According to him, he and Smt. Kanta Devi are entitled to get 1/3rd share towards the pension. It is also stated that the authorities were requested time and again to release the pension, but the same was not released. It was also prayed that the defendant may be directed to restore the amount of pension and defendant No. 3 may be restrained not to disburse the pension amount to defendant No. 5 ignoring the share of plaintiff and proforma-defendant No. 6, as a consequential relief. 2. Defendants No. 3 and 4 have filed a separate written statement. According to them, the pension was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 5 vide pension order No. 58/spl. we.f. 01.05.1949, as a special case, but the same was not granted to the widow of Nihalu, namely, Smt. Janki Devi. 2. Defendants No. 3 and 4 have filed a separate written statement. According to them, the pension was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 5 vide pension order No. 58/spl. we.f. 01.05.1949, as a special case, but the same was not granted to the widow of Nihalu, namely, Smt. Janki Devi. However, there is no contemporaneous material on record that the defendant No. 5 was authorized to collect the pension of deceased Janki Devi, widow of Nihalu, but as per record, the pension was in fact granted to defendant No. 5. It is admitted that the pension disbursing officer, Sarkaghat has released the arrear of pension w.e.f. 01.08.1971 to 30.06.1998 amounting to Rs. 1,09,737/- to defendant No. 5 after due approval by the S.R. Deputy Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh on 27.4.2001. 3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have also filed separate written statement. According to them also, the pension was granted to defendant No. 5, Sh. Roshan Lal, S/o Sh. Nihalu Ram vide PPO/Special, dated 10.11.1950. According to defendants No. 1 and 2, the disbursement of pension to defendant No. 5 is in accordance with the record. It is also admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,09,737/- was disbursed to defendant No. 5 vide letter dated 27.04.2001 by the Treasury Officer, Sarkaghat. It is also submitted that PPO No. 58/Special, dated 10.11.1950 granting charitable allowance @ Rs. 2/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.1949 was revised from time to time in favour of Sh. Roshan Lal, defendant No. 5 and the same was issued by Joint Office of Accountant General, Punjab Shimla. The entire record was transferred to the respective Accountant General which is not traceable being 50 years old. However, as per photo copy of PPO sent by defendant No. 5, it is clear that the pension was granted in favour of defendant No. 5. 4. Proforma defendant No. 6 has also filed a separate written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiff as a whole. 5. The issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on 07.11.2007. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, District Mandi on 03.11.2009. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2009. The same was dismissed on 23.07.2011. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, District Mandi on 03.11.2009. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2009. The same was dismissed on 23.07.2011. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. The notice was issued on 22.11.2011. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of defendant No. 5. 6. Mr. Vijay Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the oral as well as documentary evidence has not been considered by both the Courts below. He then argued that it was incumbent upon the defendants to produce the original record of PPO No. 58. 7. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent No. 2, Mr. Rajender Dogra, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 have supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 9. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. According to him, defendant No. 5 is his brother. His father died in 1944-45 in an accident. According to him, at that time, he and his brother and sisters were minor. His Highness Raja of Mandi had visited his village. On the request of his mother, his Highness Raja of Mandi granted pension to his mother. Initially, it was Rs. 4/- per month, but when his brother attained the age of majority, it was re-fixed from Rs. 4/- to Rs. 2/- per month. Earlier, his mother used to collect the pension personally, but when defendant No. 5 attained majority, his mother appointed him as her G.P.A. to collect the pension. Defendant No. 5 used to collect the pension on behalf of defendant No. 6 up to 1970 at Sarkaghat. Thereafter, the pension discontinued because record of the pension was lost. In the year 2000, the defendant No. 5 received the entire arrears. He requested the defendant No. 5 to disburse the amount of his mother's pension in accordance with the natural inheritance, but the defendant No. 5 did not pay any penny to the plaintiff and his sisters. A legal notice was served upon the defendants. In the year 2000, the defendant No. 5 received the entire arrears. He requested the defendant No. 5 to disburse the amount of his mother's pension in accordance with the natural inheritance, but the defendant No. 5 did not pay any penny to the plaintiff and his sisters. A legal notice was served upon the defendants. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the pension was sanctioned in the name of defendant No. 5. According to him, it was sanctioned in favour of Janki Devi, however, defendant No. 5 used to collect the pension till date. He also admitted that in 1971, the PPO was lost, but it was recovered and arrear of pension was disbursed to defendant No. 5. 10. PW-2 Shri Rohali Ram has supported the version of PW-1. According to him, his Highness Raja of Mandi visited their village and granted pension to Janki Devi. He used to come Mandi alongwith Janki Devi to collect pension. He has shown his ignorance to the date of death of Nihalu Ram. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has gone 5-6 times with Janki Devi to collect her pension. 11. PW-4, Rajinder Sharma, Senior Assistant of District Treasury Office, Mandi has testified that the original record of 1949 was not lying with the department, but the record which was renewed in the year 1961, was with the department. The copy of PPO 1961 was prepared by the department in accordance with the previous record. According to him, the defendant No. 5 was still getting pension from Treasury Office at Sarkaghat. 12. PW-5 Shri Om Prakash, Treasurer, Treasury Office Mandi has testified that the original of PPO No. 58/Spl. of 1949 was not available in the record. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the defendant No. 5 was drawing pension as per PPO No. 58/Special. He has also stated that as per their record, there was no pension sanctioned in the name of Janki Devi. 13. DW-1, Sh. M.S. Thakur, Assistant Acctts. Office, A.G. Office Shimla has brought the record of the copies Ex. DW-1/A to Ex. DW-1/J. According to him, these copies are true and correct as per their record. According to him, Shri Roshan Lal was getting the pension from Govt. vide PPO No. 58 since 1950. 13. DW-1, Sh. M.S. Thakur, Assistant Acctts. Office, A.G. Office Shimla has brought the record of the copies Ex. DW-1/A to Ex. DW-1/J. According to him, these copies are true and correct as per their record. According to him, Shri Roshan Lal was getting the pension from Govt. vide PPO No. 58 since 1950. The original PPO account was issued in the name of Shri Roshan Lal by the Government of Punjab and due to re-organization of the offices in H.P., the original PPO could not be transferred to the A.G. Government of Himachal Pradesh However, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know who has ordered the grant of pension to Shri Roshan Lal. He has also admitted that the letter regarding the sanction of pension to Shri Roshan Lal was not received by A.G. office alongwith order of pension. 14. DW-2, Sh. Jagdish Thakur, Clerk Treasury Office Mandi has produced the record of charitable pension grant dated 01.05.1949 in favour of defendant No. 5, Roshan Lal. According to him, as per the record, the pension was sanctioned in favour of Sh. Roshan Lal and arrear of the same was also disbursed to him. 15. DW-3, Shri Roshan Lal has testified that his father died in a mishap. He was 14-15 years old at that time. According to him, in order to meet the liability of his family, he came to Mandi and prayed before his Highness Raja of Mandi to grant him pension. The same was sanctioned to him. He was collecting the same and PPO was also prepared in his name. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his father was not a government employee under the rule of his Highness, Raja of Mandi. He further testified that he does not know in which year the pension was sanctioned to him. He has denied the suggestion that the pension in fact was sanctioned in the name of his mother and he used to collect the same on behalf of his mother. 16. What emerges from the oral as well as documentary evidence, is that the pension was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 5 Roshan Lal as per PPO No. 58/Special w.e.f. 01.04.1949. According to letter No. 3159, dated 01.05.1998, Ex. 16. What emerges from the oral as well as documentary evidence, is that the pension was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 5 Roshan Lal as per PPO No. 58/Special w.e.f. 01.04.1949. According to letter No. 3159, dated 01.05.1998, Ex. DW-1/A, the District Treasury Officer sent a communication to Senior vice Accountant General of Himachal Pradesh regarding the fact that a charitable pension PPO No. 58/Spl., dated 01.04.1949 has been sanctioned in the name of Shri Roshan Lal and he was drawing pension under this sanction. After 31.08.1971, the PPO book of Roshan Lal was lost, but the record of the period between 01.08.1971 to 31.03.1985 was not lying with the District Treasury Office. In these circumstances, the Senior Vice-Accountant General was requested to provide the record of the same. According to Ex. DW-1/B, the District Treasury Officer was directed by the Accountant General, Shimla to take the affidavit from Roshan Lal regarding the disbursing of pension to him. According to Ex. DW-1/C, after due inquiry, the District Treasury Officer requested the Accountant General, Shimla regarding the sanction of payment of bill of pension of Roshan Lal from 01.08.1971 to 30.06.1998. As per Ex. DW-1/D, an amount of Rs. 1,09,767/- was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 5 as arrear of pension bills. The same was verified by the Accountant General vide order dated 27th April, Ex. DW-1/F. The arrears were ordered to be disbursed to defendant No. 5 as per Ex. DW-1/H. The plaintiff has failed to prove that his mother Janki Devi was sanctioned the pension. Defendant No. 5 has duly proved that the pension was sanctioned in his favour. The version of defendant No. 5 has been duly supported by PW-4, Shri Rajinder Sharma and PW-5, Shri Om Prakash. His case has also been supported by DW-1 Shri M.S. Thakur and DW-2 Shri Jagdish Thakur. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. No costs.