JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present Regular Second Appeal is maintained by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, in Civil Appeal No.27 of 2006, dated 25.7.2006, whereby the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, had set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, District Kullu, in Civil Suit No.143 of 2005, dated 19.4.2006. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for injunction against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) claiming that they are joint owner of the land measuring 3-13-0 bighas entered in Khata No.942, Khatauni No.125 min/473 min. situated in Phati and Kothi Bajaura, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’) alongwith the defendant. The entire land measuring 38-15 bighas entered in Khasra numbers Kitta 9 Khata No.125 min. Khatauni No.473 min of Phati and Kothi, Bajaura, Tehsil and District Kullu, including the suit land is partitioned. The suit land which is abutting National Highway-21, is valuable one and is in joint ownership and possession of the parties to the suit. The defendant, however without getting the same partitioned started collecting the construction material over the suit land for raising construction of residential building thereon. The plaintiffs requested him not to raise any type of construction without getting it lawfully partitioned, but of no avail. He started digging the foundation for raising the construction of a building over the suit land on 14.8.2005. He was requested not to lay foundation over the suit land, but of no avail and he has flatly refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs. The defendant filed written statement and averred that the revenue entries qua the suit land are not disputed. It is contended that the entire land comprised in Khasra No.942 was 3-3-13 bighas and out of it land measuring 0-8-16 bighas denoted by Khasra No.942/1 was acquired by H.P. P.W.D, thereby reducing the area of the suit land and to 3-4-0 bighas. The same is not joint and rather has been separated by the parties in family settlement having taken place in the year 1989. The defendant has been allotted two bighas of land out of it, which is on the Northern side. The same is not joint and rather has been separated by the parties in family settlement having taken place in the year 1989. The defendant has been allotted two bighas of land out of it, which is on the Northern side. He is in settled possession of the same because over a portion thereof, his single storeyed slate roofed house measuring 42 x 14 feet is in existence. His cow shed and kitchen is also in existence over this land. There was one wooden structure and cow shed constructed by him over the suit land which is in his possession, which has been subsequently acquired by H.P. P.W.D. The compensation thereto was given to him alone because plaintiffs have admitted that wooden structure and cow shed having been constructed by him. In Southern side, there exists house of plaintiff Lachhman, Gauri Shankar and Bir Chand. Their cow sheds are also in existence there. The construction of the plaintiff is stated to be on the land they got in the family partition. It is denied that the defendants started collecting construction material and digging of the suit land on 14.8.2005 for laying foundation, however he has already laid the plinth to raise construction of the house measuring 60 x 40 feet long back i.e. in the year 1995. Over two bighas of land, which in family settlement has been given to him, he has started further construction in March, 2005. 3. The learned trial Court framed following issues : “1. Whether the suit property is jointly owned and possessed by the parties, as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the Prohibitory Injunction, as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff have the locus standi to sue ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands as alleged, if so its effect ? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct ? OPD. 8. Relief.” 4. The learned trial Court has decided Issue Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs, Issue No.4 not pressed and Issue Nos.6 and 7 against the defendant and decreed the suit. OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct ? OPD. 8. Relief.” 4. The learned trial Court has decided Issue Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs, Issue No.4 not pressed and Issue Nos.6 and 7 against the defendant and decreed the suit. However, the learned lower Appellate Court set aside the findings of the learned Court below and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and thereafter the present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the legal principles qua the rights and liability of co-owners/joint owners in respect of joint land resulting in wrong and illegal findings if so, its effects ? 2. Whether the Appellate Court has misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the provision of Section 114(g) of Evidence Act qua family settlement having to be proved in accordance with law, if so its effects ? 3. Whether Appellate Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted Ex.P-1 and revenue record resulting in wrong and illegal findings, if so, its effects ?” 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has argued that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the land was joint inter se the parties and no co-sharer has a right to change the nature of the suit land. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has argued that the learned Lower Appellate Court has given the findings after appreciating the fact to its true perspective. He has further argued that as per the admission of the plaintiffs, the land was already partitioned. 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has argued that there is no partition over the suit land and no written document of partition was produced on record by the defendant. 7. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 8. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are the real brothers. PW-1 has stated that the suit land is in their joint ownership and possession and abutting to National Highway-21, hence more valuable, as compared to their other joint holding. The defendant according to him has started construction over a portion thereof without getting the same partitioned. 8. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are the real brothers. PW-1 has stated that the suit land is in their joint ownership and possession and abutting to National Highway-21, hence more valuable, as compared to their other joint holding. The defendant according to him has started construction over a portion thereof without getting the same partitioned. In his cross-examination, he has stated that out of the suit land, land measuring 0-8-16 bigha has been acquired by H.P. P.W.D for road and an old house as well as cow shed was in existence thereon. The compensation thereof was paid by the Government to Nag Ram (defendant) and according to PW-1, they had given in writing that the compensation should be paid to the defendant. He has admitted that the old duplex house consisting of two rooms of the defendant is on a portion of the suit land, where he has started construction of the new house. His cow shed and kitchen are also stated to be in existence on that very land. He has also admitted that his own house as well as that of Lachhman (plaintiff No.1) is also in existence over the suit land towards Southern side. He has categorically admitted that out of the suit land, two bighas falls in the share of the defendant and he has laid the plinth for raising construction of new house. It is also admitted that the dimension of the proposed house of the plaintiff is 60 x 40 feet. According to him, the land stands partitioned during the life time of their fore-fathers. Three separate portions of the suit land are being cultivated separately. It is also admitted that the defendant is not interfering with the land in the possession of the plaintiffs. It is also admitted that the defendant is not causing interference even in the vacant land which situates in front of his house nor he has any concern therewith in any manner. It is denied that the defendant has started construction work in March, 2005 and that he has stacked construction material also there, however he has stated that he has started construction of new house about two months ago. The plinth of the house of the plaintiff is old one. It is admitted that the suit land was partitioned between them in the year 1989. The plinth of the house of the plaintiff is old one. It is admitted that the suit land was partitioned between them in the year 1989. PW-2 Dagu Ram has stated that the parties are known to him and he has also seen the suit land. The portion of the suit land is vacant on the spot and it is not yet partitioned between the parties. Now the defendant has started raising construction of the house over a portion thereof, which is abutting the National Highway. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there exists three houses on the suit land, out of which, one is that of defendant another of plaintiff No.2 Gauri Shankar and third one of Gangu Ram. He has also admitted that the house of the plaintiff are situated in Southern side of the suit land and as per family settlement arrived at between the parties, it was agreed upon that they will raise the construction of their house over that very land, which has been given to them in family settlement. It is also admitted that the suit land situates on the Northern side is being cultivated by the defendant, as per family partition and that land is in exclusive possession of the defendant. It is also admitted that the proposed house of the defendant is being constructed on that very land, which situates in Northern side and exclusively in his possession. 9. PW-1 and PW-2, they have categorically admitted the partition of the land between the parties in a family settlement long back during the life time of their fore-fathers. PW-1 has admitted that the family partition was arrived at between them in the year 1989. The plaintiffs are possessing the portion of the suit land situated in Southern side because their houses are in existence thereon. The defendant according to both the witnesses has never caused any interference in possession of the plaintiffs qua the portion of the suit land, which situates in Southern side and in possession of the plaintiffs. It is also crystal clear that the land in Northern side has been given to the defendant in family settlement and he is exclusive owner of the same due to family partition. PW-1 has admitted that two bighas of land out of the suit land has been given to the defendant. It is also crystal clear that the land in Northern side has been given to the defendant in family settlement and he is exclusive owner of the same due to family partition. PW-1 has admitted that two bighas of land out of the suit land has been given to the defendant. Not only this, but both the witnesses have categorically stated that the defendant has started raising construction over the land in Northern side and on land in his exclusive possession. They have not stated anything as to how the land over which the defendant has started construction according to him is more valuable, as compared to in the Southern side which has been given to them in family settlement. The defendant has started the construction over a valuable portion of the suit land is also without any substance. The compensation qua 0-8-16 bighas of land acquired by P.W.D out of the suit land has been given to the defendant and as regards the plaintiff also recommends payments thereof to him. Meaning thereby that the land acquired by P.W.D was in exclusive possession of the defendant because it is for this reason the compensation has been given to him alone and not to the plaintiffs. Both these witnesses examined by the plaintiffs have, thus, fully supported the case set out by the defendant. The same finds corroboration from own testimony of the defendant that the portion of the suit land over which he has started construction work is in his exclusive possession and it falls in his share pursuant to the family settlement having taken place in the year 1989. His old slate roofed house was in existence on this land and his kitchen and cow shed also situate there. Out of the suit land two bighas of land which falls in Northern side has been given to him. The compensation of the old cow shed and wooden structure existing over the land acquired by P.W.D was also given to him. The plinth for raising new construction according to him was laid long back that is in the year 1995 and thereafter in March, 2005 he has started construction work. The compensation of the old cow shed and wooden structure existing over the land acquired by P.W.D was also given to him. The plinth for raising new construction according to him was laid long back that is in the year 1995 and thereafter in March, 2005 he has started construction work. Such construction is at the level of plinth, but the plaintiff knowing fully well that he has spent more than five lacs for raising such construction and the construction material worth lacs of rupees is also still lying there have filed the suit only to harass him. In his cross-examination, it is admitted that the parties own and possess 38 bighas of land, the suit land is abutting National Highway and as such valuable. No writing qua family settlement was prepared nor any entry thereof was made in the revenue record. It is however, denied that no family partition took place. 10. It is proved on record that the defendant is in exclusive possession portion of the suit land over which he has started raising construction. It is also established that the plinth was laid by him long back in the year 1995 and the construction work also commenced thereon in the month of March, 2005. The report of Local Commissioner was also revealed that the foundation of new constructed house of the defendant is old one. In this view of the matter the plaintiff merely to harass the defendant mentally and also financially because otherwise they have nothing to do with the portion of the suit land over which he has started raising construction of the new house. Since the plaintiffs have themselves admitted that the suit land stand partitioned long back and on the Northern side on which the defendant raising construction on the old house in his exclusive possession, so when the parties had partitioned the land and they are in exclusive possession, this Court find that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court is just and reasoned. Substantial question of law No.1 is answered accordingly holding that the suit land is not joint between the parties, so there is no question with regard to the rights of the joint owners. Substantial question of law No.1 is answered accordingly holding that the suit land is not joint between the parties, so there is no question with regard to the rights of the joint owners. As far as substantial question of law No.2 is concerned that the plaintiffs have themselves admitted in the learned Court below that the partition has taken place, therefore, the learned Court below has not misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the provision of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, as it is the plaintiff, who has admitted the facts alleged by the defendant with respect to the partition of the suit land as well as separate possession of the plaintiff on the Southern side and the defendant’s possession on the Northern side and the construction of the house by the defendant at the place on the Northern side, where his house was already existing. As far as substantial question of law No.4 is concerned, it is held that the learned Court below has appreciated Ex.P-1 correctly, as the defendant has proved on record that the land is no more joint. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegally and infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, so no interference of this Court is required. In these circumstances, the appeal of the appellant is without merit and deserves dismissal, hence the same is dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.