JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 58-S/13 of 2009. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit praying for decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant” for convenience sake) from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 46 min/129, khasra No. 322 and 323 kitas 2 measuring 3591 square meters situated in Mauza Naryal, Pargana Bhaget, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. According to the plaintiff, she is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and has constructed her house on khasra No. 323, which is also in her exclusive possession. Defendant is stranger to the suit land. He has purchased the adjoining land from the husband of the plaintiff comprised in Khata Khatauni No.46 min/128, Khasra No. 329 and 335, kitas 2 measuring 2159 square meters whereon the house and industrial shed are existing. Defendant is trying to interfere in the suit land by intending to raise construction over it and by digging the same. 3. Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, plaintiff is not exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. She had entered into an agreement with Rakesh Kumar Gupta whereby she had sold the suit land alongwith building existing on a portion of the same to him and had received the entire consideration amount and handed over the actual and physical possession of the land to him on the spot. It is specifically denied that the house is in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. It is stated that Rakesh Kumar Gupta is in actual and physical possession of the suit land, including building in Khasra No. 323. It is alleged that defendant has neither purchased any adjoining land from the husband of the plaintiff nor he has anything to do with the same. According to him, it is M/s. Synergies Technologies which has purchased the adjoining property from the husband of plaintiff. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) framed issues on 13.9.2006. He decreed the suit on 24.8.2009. Defendant feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 24.8.2009 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Solan. According to him, it is M/s. Synergies Technologies which has purchased the adjoining property from the husband of plaintiff. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) framed issues on 13.9.2006. He decreed the suit on 24.8.2009. Defendant feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 24.8.2009 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Solan. He dismissed the same on 4.10.2012. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 5. Mr. M.S. Kanwar, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the courts below have misconstrued and misread the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. According to him, the suit was not properly constituted due to non-joinder. He has also referred to section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. According to him, land ought to have been demarcated as per instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. 6. Mr. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 8. Plaintiff Smt. Vinay Jain has appeared as PW- 1. She has placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 Ex.PW-1/B. Plaintiff has been recorded as owner. According to her, defendant has no concern with the suit land. He intends to dig the suit land. According to her, defendant has dug septic tank on the suit land. 9. Statement of PW-1 Smt. Vinay Jain has duly been corroborated by PW-2 Rattan Singh. According to him, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as owner. PW-2 Rattan Singh is working with the plaintiff and her husband for the past 19-20 years. He has also deposed that defendant interferes in the suit land and intended and threatened to raise construction. According to him also, defendant by forcibly digging a pit over the suit land has constructed septic tank. 10.Defendant Susheel Kumar Abrol while appearing as DW- 1 has deposed that he has neither interfered nor has intention to interfere in the suit land. DW- 1 in his cross-examination has disputed the area depicted in Ex.PW- 1/B, but he has admitted that the remaining entries are correct. PW- 1 Smt. Vinay Jain has proved the copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. There is presumption of truth attached to Ex.PW-1/B. Defendant has failed to rebut the same. 11. According to Mr. DW- 1 in his cross-examination has disputed the area depicted in Ex.PW- 1/B, but he has admitted that the remaining entries are correct. PW- 1 Smt. Vinay Jain has proved the copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. There is presumption of truth attached to Ex.PW-1/B. Defendant has failed to rebut the same. 11. According to Mr. M.S. Kanwar, suit land has been sold to one Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. He has relied upon the copy of plaint Ex.PW­1/C filed by Rakesh Kumar Gupta against the plaintiff for specific performance as well as written statement filed by the plaintiff Ex.PW- 1 /D. Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 31.8.2005 and the suit filed by Rakesh Kumar Gupta was decreed on 18.6.2010. Thus, there is no concealment of facts by the plaintiff, as argued by Mr. M.S. Kanwar. Plaintiff, in her written statement, Ex.DW­1 /D has specifically denied that she has handed over the possession to Rakesh Kumar Gupta. Plea of Rakesh Kumar Gupta has not been upheld by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Moreover, in this case, defendant has not examined Rakesh Kumar Gupta to the effect that he is in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff has delivered the possession to him. He has relied upon Ex.DW- 1/B, Ex.DW- 1 /G and Ex.DW- 1/H, which are copies of statements recorded in the civil suit alongwith copy of agreement Ex.DW-1/K and power of attorney Ex.DW- 1 /J. Civil suit filed by Rakesh Kumar Gupta has been decreed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 18.6.2010 vide judgment Ex.PA. Though the suit has been decreed against the plaintiff, but there is no finding by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) that the suit land is in possession of Rakesh Kumar Gupta. The Court while deciding issue No.2 has declined to grant the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent and has held that the possession of Rakesh Kumar Gupta over the suit land was not established. Thus, defendant cannot take advantage of the decree dated 18.6.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Defendant has not raised the specific plea of section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act before the courts below. Thus, defendant cannot take advantage of the decree dated 18.6.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Defendant has not raised the specific plea of section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act before the courts below. 12.Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. 13.Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, there is no question of law much less to say substantial question of law, involved in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.