JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against the judgment dated 5.10.2005, rendered by learned District Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh in C.A. No. 56-S/13 of 2005. 2. “Key facts" necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake) for permanent prohibitory injunction. According to the plaintiff, he was joint owner in possession alongwith brothers Nanak Chand and Himat Singh of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 43/47, Khasra No. 941/113 measuring 4-1 Bigha situate in Mauza Uchagoan, Pargana Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, HP. Defendant was a stranger to the suit land having no right, title or interest over the suit land. Civil Suit No. 176/1 of 1997 was filed in the court against defendant for permanent prohibitory injunction not to raise construction. Matter was settled in the Lok Adalat on 18.11.2000. Consequently, the plaintiff withdrew the suit. However, despite an undertaking given to him on 5.1.2001, defendant started ploughing one of the fields of suit land forcibly. Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, suit land bearing Khasra No. 941/113 measuring 40-15 bigha, alleged to be part of Khasra No. 113 was recorded under the ownership of defendant alongwith others to the extent of 8 shares out of 72 shares. Partition proceedings were initiated by Tehsildar Arki exercising the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, mutation of partition was entered as mutation No. 832 dated 14.12.1990. Partition was not complete because warrant of possession was not executed. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) framed issues. He allowed the suit on 23.6.2005. Defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge. He dismissed the same on 5.10.2005. Hence, this appeal. 3. The Regular Second Appeal, was admitted on 1.5.2007, on the following substantial question of law: “Whether there has been misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence in regard to possession pursuant to the order issued for delivery of possession?” 4. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law framed, has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record regarding possession. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 6. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law framed, has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record regarding possession. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. Plaintiff Beli Ram has appeared as PW-1. He deposed that the land measuring 4 Bigha was situate in village Biran and the suit land came into their possession after partition 13-14 years ago. Defendant tried to raise construction. Matter was amicably compromised before the Court. Defendant tried to cut Tunni and Biul trees. Plaintiff also produced PW-2 Paras Ram and PW-3 Krishan Lal. They have supported the version of the plaintiff. According to them, plaintiff was owner-in-possession of the suit land. 8. Defendant appeared as DW-1. He has tendered his evidence as Ext. DW-1/A. he has examined Sant Ram DW-2 and Ram Chand DW-3, who have tendered their evidence Ext. DB and Ext. DC. According to them, warrant of possession was not executed within three years. As such partition proceedings were not complete. Status of the parties was joint as no partition had taken place. 9. DW-4 Rama Nand, Field Kanungo was also examined by the defendant. He deposed that the file regarding partition proceedings was handed over to him by Tehsildar. Copy of application for partition is Ext. D-1, instrument of partition is Ext. D-2, copies of zimini orders are Ext. D-3 to D-37, partition order is D-38. According to him, possession was not handed over to the parties by him because all the owners were not present. He recorded statement of Duni Chand. He visited the spot again on 1.12.1990. However, on that day, defendant and other owners were not present as such possession was not handed over. Statements of Krishan Chand, Bhagat Ram, Ram Lal and Sohan Lal were also recorded. 10. Application Ext. D-1 was made by the plaintiff in the year 1982. It was sent by the Collector to the Kanungo for effecting partition on the spot and prepare partition map. Statements of Krishan Chand, Bhagat Ram, Ram Lal and Sohan Lal were also recorded. 10. Application Ext. D-1 was made by the plaintiff in the year 1982. It was sent by the Collector to the Kanungo for effecting partition on the spot and prepare partition map. Kanungo submitted the papers for partition to the Collector and on 19.1.1985, Collector passed the order of partition of the property as per papers submitted by Kanungo and against it an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Collector 1st Grade. Collector vide Order dated 30.6.1987 directed the parties to deposit necessary stamp duty and ordered drawing of mode of partition which was drawn on 22.3.1988. Plaintiff applied for delivery of possession in the year 1990. Collector ordered for delivery of possession vide order dated 7.8.1990. Statement of DW-4 Rama Nand is against the documents. It is evident from the report Ext. D-40 that parties were present on the spot and they were already in possession and parties who were not in possession, possession was handed over to them as per their shares. It is evident from the reading of Ext. D-40 that possession was delivered to the parties on the spot and mutation was also attested. Defendant has not challenged the document Ext. D-40 by filing an appeal. It is also clear from the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1995-96 Mark-A that the plaintiff was exclusive owner-in-possession over the suit land. These entries were coming in favour of the plaintiff since 1990. No evidence has been led by the defendant to rebut this revenue record. 11. Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.