JUDGMENT: K. Kannan, J. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The suit was filed for injunction stating that he was the owner of the property and in possession and the defendants were attempting to interfere with the possession. The plaintiff's ownership was asserted with reference to entries in jamabandies that showed him to be co-owner along with several other villagers. He was stated to be a co-owner with reference to extent of 3/14th share for a total extent of 236 kanals 18 marlas but the suit was confined only to Killa No.26//2/1 of extent of 2 kanals 1 marla in Lokra village. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property but on the other hand, the suit property was gair mumkin and demarcated by specific boundaries by construction of a compound wall. The villagers had contributed to the constructions and a multi-purpose community centre was inaugurated on 2.2.1994 in the presence of the ADC, Gurgaon. For inauguration of the community centre, photographs showing the existence of building thereon had been produced by the defendants as Ex.D5 and D6. It was also contended that when the plaintiff was trying to make a false assertion to right to the property, villagers convened a panchayat on 20.03.2005 where the plaintiff participated and admitted to the fact that the construction had been brought up and a construction was made there on the assumption that it was a public property and since the plaintiff was making a claim with the reference to the property, he would transfer the same to the village community on receiving Rs. 2100/-. The plaintiff denied that he had executed any document and produced some photographs that showed the existence of building and wanted to identify his own tractor as having been parked in the building. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had forcibly parked the vehicle and must have clicked the photograph for creating evidence but the property had not been in exclusive possession of the plaintiff at all and it was put to use as a community centre in the manner brought out in the written statement and in the manner explained through photographs. 2. There was an evidence brought at the trial through DW2 ex-sarpanch of the village, who was 77 years of age. 2. There was an evidence brought at the trial through DW2 ex-sarpanch of the village, who was 77 years of age. There was evidence that (i) the entire suit land was having a boundary wall around it; (ii) there was a building situate inside within the boundary which was being used as dharamshala and built by the Dharamshala Samiti of the village; (iii) there was yet another building of multi purpose community centre in the land which had been inaugurated by the then ADC, Gurgaon and (iv) there had been a settlement arrived at in the year 2005 where the plaintiff had admitted to the present status of the property as being possessed in joint by the members of the public. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis that the revenue entries showed that the plaintiff had been treated as owner and therefore, he is entitled to the relief of injunction. However, it denied the relief sought by the plaintiff regarding the change of entry in the khasra girdawari and jamabandi holding that such relief was not competent before the Civil Court. 4. In appeal filed by the defendants, the lower Appellate Court referred to the actual nature of property, the maner of user by the villagers and several factors as elicited through evidence of DW2 which we have extracted above as points (i) to (iv). The Court found that the plaintiff had deliberately suppressed vital facts on the character of property presently and his own willingness at some point of time to have even a dharamshala named as Lakora Dharamshala. The relief of injunction was under the circumstances found to be inappropriate where the most crucial issue for injunction would have been possession and the plaintiff was not found in exclusive possession to secure such relief. The judgment of the Appellate Court is well reasoned and sets out reckoning of several factors which were weighty and shown clearly that the plaintiff's action for injunction cannot be sustained at all. 5. I find no merit in the second appeal and would make no interference. The second appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.