JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. This Regular Second Appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the defendant, stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave error of law in misreading the plea taken in the written statement and relied upon the alternative plea of abandonment of right in basing its Judgment only on that aspect of the matter? Has not Lower Appellate Court drawn wrong presumptions of ownership in favour of the plaintiffs by relying on inadmissible evidence Exhibit P-3 and drawing erroneous assumptions of jointness of ownership when there was no plea in the plaint made by the plaintiffs claiming a specific share as joint in the suit property? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has ignored the cardinal principle of law applicable to the abadi land within “lal lakeer”? Has not Lower Appellate Court committed grave error of law in applying the principle of co-ownership or joint ownership applicable to such land within the “lal laker” abadi? 2. One Punnu had two sons Diwan Chand (plaintiff) and Khemdi (defendant). Suit land admeasuring 0-40-33 HM, comprising Khata No.27, Khatauni No.56, Khasra No.123, recorded as gair mumkin abadi, situated in Mohal Gharatu, Mauza Dini, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P., is reflected in the revenue records to be jointly owned by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, which expression includes his successor-in-interest) and the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). To such effect, revenue records (Ex.P-2, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, Ex.P-3, copy of Sajra Nasab of the parties, Ex.P-4, Shajra Kishtwar, Ex.P-5 copy of jamabandi for the year 1994-95 of the Shamlat land and Ex.P-6, copy of Missal Haquiat for the year 1984-85) stand proven on record. Also there cannot be any dispute about correctness thereof. That the plaintiff relinquished his share in the suit land stands repelled by the trial Court, which finding, undisputedly remains unassailed by the defendant. After constructing his Pucca house, defendant’s endeavour of raising further construction over the vacant land jointly owned by the parties, stands resisted by the plaintiff, who wants the defendant to be in-junctioned from doing so. 3. Resistance on the part of the defendant led the trial Court to frame the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, prayed for? OPP 2. 3. Resistance on the part of the defendant led the trial Court to frame the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees, if so, what is the correct valuation of the suit property? OPD 6. Whether the Abadi Lal Lakir is not liable to be partitioned, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed, material fact, if so, its effect? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 9. Whether the suit is vague as alleged? OPD 10. Relief. 4. While adjudicating the aforesaid issues, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit, vide judgment dated 26.08.2002, in Civil Suit No.142/1996, titled as Rajneesh & another v. Khemdi, trial Court held: (i) the defendant’s plea of the plaintiff having relinquished his share in the suit land, to be unproven on record; (ii) the plaintiff to have constructed his separate house on another cultivable land, also owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the parties; (iii) the plaintiff not to be in possession of the suit land; (iv) the suit land to be inadequately identified and described by the plaintiff; (v) Since suit property could not be partitioned in view of law laid down by this Court in Kewal Ram v. The Gram Panchayat Bhutti Through its Pradhan and others, ILR (HP) 211, trial Court held that no injunction could be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. 5. Findings, to a limited extent, stand reversed by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 05.01.2004, in Civil Appeal No. 138-N/XIII/2002, titled as Rajneesh & another v. Khemdi, holding the (i) Plaintiff to be shareholder in equal measure with the defendant; (ii) Possession of the defendant, being a Co-sharer, on the land is joint and constructive with that of other co-sharer (plaintiff); (iii) trial Court erred in correctly appreciating and applying the law laid down in Kewal Ram (supra); (iv) In view of law laid down by various Courts, including this Court in Nagesh Kumar v. Kewal Krishan, AIR 2000 HP 116 , a co-sharer raising construction without the consent of others can be restrained by the grant of temporary injunction, which principle, with equal force, would apply for grant of permanent injunction. 6. Status of the plaintiff as a co-sharer in the suit land, stood proven, which also cannot be disputed, in view of testimonies of Diwan Chand (PW.1) and Pradeep Singh (PW.2) as also documentary evidence i.e. Ex.P-2, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, Ex.P-3, copy of Sajra Nasab of the parties, Ex.P-4, Shajra Kishtwar, Ex.P-5, copy of jamabandi for the year 1994-95 of the Shamlat land and Ex.P-6, copy of Missal Haquiat for the year 1984-85. Defendant’s plea of the plaintiff having abandoned his share in the suit land stands repelled by the Courts below. There is no error with such findings. 7. The suit land is an open space and not a built up structure. Though trial Court failed to notice the same, but the Lower Appellate Court rightly noted it to be so. Also it is evident that plaintiff has constructed his house at another place where he has been residing for the last 30-40 years, but then testimonies of the parties or their witnesses do not reveal that at any point in time, he had ever relinquished his share or abandoned his right over the suit land. Parties may be residing separately, at far off places but then such fact is not even proof of non user of the land situated in a village. 8. This Court had the occasion to deal with the question as to what is an Abadi Deh land. Since the issue is no longer res integra, reference of the decisions alone, would serve the purpose. 8. This Court had the occasion to deal with the question as to what is an Abadi Deh land. Since the issue is no longer res integra, reference of the decisions alone, would serve the purpose. [Kewal Ram v. The Gram Panchayat Bhutti Through its Pradhan and others, ILR (HP) 211; Ganga Devi and another v. Ashok Kumar and others, Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 721; and Smt. Vidhya Devi and others v. Shri Kashmir Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 206]. 9. Noticeably, the issue as to whether vacant land, which is Abadi Deh, jointly owned and possessed by the parties can be partitioned or not never came up for consideration in any of the aforesaid decisions, though in Ganga Devi (supra), the Court while distinguishing Kewal Ram (supra), categorically held that inter se the co-sharers, built up structure falling within the Abadi Deh land, can also be subjected to partition. If that be so, then there cannot be any prohibition in partitioning the vacant land jointly put to use by the parties. The extent of land and its co-sharers are not in dispute. The site plan, so proved on record, properly identifies the property. 10. It be also observed that the observation made by this court in Kewal Ram (supra), as reproduced in para-11 of the judgment rendered by the trial Court, stands subsequently considered and distinguished by this Court in Ganga Devi (supra). 11. Evidence on record does not establish that at any given point in time, plaintiff had given up his share or right in the suit land. Plea of adjustment and exchange, so taken by the defendant stands repelled. Defendant has already constructed a Pucca house and is now trying to raise permanent construction over the vacant portion of land which is jointly held by the parties. Allegedly construction raised by the plaintiff is in excess of the area, which he was otherwise entitled to and plaintiff has no house in the said village. Significantly plaintiff is not seeking partition of the construction already raised by the defendant. In fact, it is also not the subject matter of the suit. The land in question is jointly put to use by the parties. It is in this backdrop that the Lower Appellate Court, rightly held the right of the plaintiff to be similar to that of the defendant over the suit land. 12. In fact, it is also not the subject matter of the suit. The land in question is jointly put to use by the parties. It is in this backdrop that the Lower Appellate Court, rightly held the right of the plaintiff to be similar to that of the defendant over the suit land. 12. Hence findings returned by the lower Appellate Court cannot be said to be erroneous, illegal or perverse. As such, substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.