JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. 1. Present regular second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Bilaspur (H.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2007 title Sohanu Ram vs. Shri Nikku Ram and Others whereby learned District Judge Bilaspur (H.P.) affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 51/1 of 2003 decided on 5.6.2006 title Sohanu Ram vs. Nikku Ram and Others. Brief facts of the case 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Sohanu Ram plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants not to damage the path comprised in Khewat No. 580 min Khatauni No. 662, Khasra No. 139 measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas situated in village Dhar Tatoh Pargana and Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. Additional relief of permanent prohibitory injunction also sought not to change the nature of land comprised in Khata No. 580 min Khatauni No. 661 Khasra Nos. 136, 138, 140 situated in village Dhar Tatoh Pargana and Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. in any manner. Additional relief of mandatory injunction also sought for demolition of structure if so raised by defendants during pendency of civil suit. It is pleaded that defendants have encroached upon Khasra No. 140 qua which complaint was filed and when order of eviction was going to be passed then predecessor-in-interest of defendants filed civil suit before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bilaspur (H.P.) which was dismissed. It is pleaded that appeal preferred by defendants was also dismissed by learned District Judge on 23.11.2001. It is pleaded that despite various applications and requests filed by plaintiff before AC 1st Grade learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not evict the defendants from Khasra No. 140/1. It is pleaded that AC 1st Grade also sent a written order to SHO Barmana to stop the defendants from encroaching the suit land. It is pleaded that police officials visited the spot but instead of implementing the order police officials straight away went inside residential house of defendants and came out after one or two hours and abused the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to sign blank papers and when plaintiff refused to sign police officials took the plaintiff into illegal custody qua which complaint was filed before SP Bilaspur. Prayer for decree the suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. It is pleaded that suit of plaintiff is not valued for the purpose of court fee and further pleaded that suit of plainitff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Plaintiff also filed replication and re-asserted allegations mentioned in the plaint. As per the pleadings of parties learned Trial Court framed following issues on 28.07.2003:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no legally enforceable cause of action as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD 6. Whether Court has no jursidiction to hear the present suit as alleged? OPD 7. Relief. 5. Learned Trial Court decided issues Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 in negative and learned Trial Court decided issues Nos. 3, 5 in affirmative. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court Sohanu filed appeal before learned District Judge Bilaspur. Learned District Judge Bilaspur on 18.1.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by appellant. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court appellant filed the present RSA. RSA was admitted on following substantial questions of law on 30.3.2009:- 1. Whether findings of the Court below are perverse based upon misreading of pleadings of the parties and the documents P4, P5 and the report of the Kanungo and Patwari PW1/A? 2. RSA was admitted on following substantial questions of law on 30.3.2009:- 1. Whether findings of the Court below are perverse based upon misreading of pleadings of the parties and the documents P4, P5 and the report of the Kanungo and Patwari PW1/A? 2. Whether presumption of truth attached to the revenue record and demarcation report which were duly proved showing the land to be Gair Mumkin Rasta (Uncultivable path) on Khasra No. 139 and Charand Dehati (Grazing place for inhabitants) wherein the plaintiff had legal right and findings that the plaintiff had failed to prove the encroachment or right on the land are sustainable in law more particularly in view of the demarcation report Ext.PW1/A, tatima Ext.PW3/A and P4 and P5? 3. Whether in view of the judgment in the previous suit wherein the right of adverse possession claimed by the defendants had been negatived, defendants could be allowed to obstruct the passage and interfere with the rights of plaintiff in Jungle Dehati (Forest rights of locals)? 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of parties and also perused the entire record carefully. 9. Findings upon point No.1 of substantial question of law with reasons:- 9.1 PW1 Sohanu Lal has stated that he has brought the summoned record which is relating to destroy of record. He has stated that abtract of register is Ext.PW1/A which is correct as per original record. 9.2 Chatar Singh Patwari has stated that he has brought the record of Khasra Girdawari relating to Khasra No. 139 which is Gair Mumkin path (Non-cultivable path). He has stated that Girdawari is conducted as per factual position. 9.3 PW3 Sukh Ram retired Patwari has stated that tatima Ext.PW3/A has been prepared by him. He has stated that case of encroachment was instituted qua Khasra No. 140. He has stated that plinth was raised in Khasra No. 139 and digging process was operated in Khasra No. 140 by predecessor-in-interest of defendant namely Banta. He has stated that tatima Ext.PW3/A was got verified from Field Kanungo. He has denied suggestion that he has prepared false tatima and also denied suggestion that he has prepared tatima without visiting spot. 9.4 PW4 Madan Lal Kanungo has stated that he is posted as Field Kanungo since 2002 and report Ext.PW4/A is written and signed by him which is relating to Khasra No. 140/1. He has denied suggestion that he has prepared false tatima and also denied suggestion that he has prepared tatima without visiting spot. 9.4 PW4 Madan Lal Kanungo has stated that he is posted as Field Kanungo since 2002 and report Ext.PW4/A is written and signed by him which is relating to Khasra No. 140/1. He has stated that he submitted encroachment report Ext.PW4/A before A.C. 1st Grade against co-defendant Nikku and thereafter encroachment proceedings against codefendant Nikku were initiated before A.C. 1st Grade. He has stated that report Ext.DA is also written and signed by him and statements Ext.DB are written and signed by him. He has stated that he recorded statements of Bhagat Ram, Budhi Ram, Sukh Ram, Nand Lal, Jaindoo Ram, Gulab Ram and Gian Chand Ext.DC. 9.5 DW1 Nikku Ram co-defendant No.1 has stated that he is owner of Khasra No. 141 and he obtained the demarcation from Kanungo. He has stated that he has raised construction in his own land. He has stated that he did not encroach the land in any manner. He has stated that Khasra No. 140 is Gair Mumkin path (Non-cultivable path) owned by Government of H.P. and now road has been constructed. He has stated that plaintiff has filed false suit against defendants due to enmity. He has stated that he filed application for demarcation. He has shown ignorance that civil suit of adverse possession was filed by his father Banta Ram relating to suit land which was dismissed. He has stated that appeal was filed before learned District Judge which was dismissed. He has admitted that encroachment file is pending in office of Tehsildar. He has denied suggestion that dispossession order was passed by competent authority. He has stated that he does not know that tatima Ext.PW3/A was prepared. He has stated that if any portion of construction is found over the suit land then defendants would vacate the same. 9.6 DW2 Bhagat Ram has stated that he is Lumberdar and on 7.8.2003 land was demarcated by Field Kanungo. He has stated that he also signed demarcation proceedings. He has stated that he could not state Khasra numbers of suit land. He has stated that he does not know that civil suit relating to adverse possession was filed by Banta and defendants relating to suit land and same was dismissed by learned Trial Court and by learned Appellate Court. 10. He has stated that he could not state Khasra numbers of suit land. He has stated that he does not know that civil suit relating to adverse possession was filed by Banta and defendants relating to suit land and same was dismissed by learned Trial Court and by learned Appellate Court. 10. Following documentaries evidence filed by the parties. (1) Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 are copies of jamabandis for the year 1998-99 relating to Khasra Nos. 136, 137, 138, 139, 140. (2) Ext.PW4/A is copy of report of Patwari and Field Kanungo relating to encroachment of Khasra No. 140/1 by defendants Nikko Ram and others. (3) Ext.P4 is copy of application filed before A.C. 1st Grade Sadar Bilaspur H.P. by plaintiff against defendants relating to forcible construction over suit land. (4) Ext.P5 is copy of order of Tehsildar dated 3.6.2003 whereby Tehsildar directed SHO to stop defendants from raising construction over Khasra No. 140/1 situated at village Dhar Tatoh District Bilaspur (H.P.). (5) Ext.PW3/A is copy of Aks tatima wherein it is specifically mentioned that defendants have started digging process over Khasra No. 140 and Khasra No. 139 of suit land. (6) Ext.P6 is copy of judgment dated 23.11.2001 passed by District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999 decided on 23.11.2001 title Banta deceased through his LRs Smt. Parsinu and others vs. Sohanu Ram where right of adverse possession denied to defendants over suit land. (7) Ext.P7 is copy of decree sheet relating to civil appeal No. 66 of 1999. (8) Ext.PW1/A is copy of register wherein exchange application of Banta predecessor-in-interest of defendants relating to Khasra No. 141/1 and Khasra No. 136 was dismissed. (9) Ext.DW1/A is copy of application for demarcation filed by Banta Ram predecessor-in-interest of defendants relating to Khasra No. 141 and 2239/148. (10) Ext.DX is copy of order dated 30.10.2003 passed by A.C. 2nd Grade Bilaspur H.P. relating to demarcation of Khasra No. 141 and 2239/148. (11) Ext.DA is copy of demarcation report qua Khasra Nos. 141 and 2239/148. (12) Ext.DB is statement of Nikku Ram over demarcation of Khasra Nos. 141 and 2239/148. (13) Ext.DC combined statement of persons recorded by Field Kanungo relating to demarcation of Khasra Nos. 141 and 2239/148. 11. (11) Ext.DA is copy of demarcation report qua Khasra Nos. 141 and 2239/148. (12) Ext.DB is statement of Nikku Ram over demarcation of Khasra Nos. 141 and 2239/148. (13) Ext.DC combined statement of persons recorded by Field Kanungo relating to demarcation of Khasra Nos. 141 and 2239/148. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that findings of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court are perverse based upon misreading of pleadings of parties and documents P4, P5 and report of Kanungo and Patwari Ext.PW1/A placed on record is partly answered in yes and partly answered in no. It is proved on record that plaintiff has sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants not to damage the path comprised in Khasra No. 139. Court has carefully perused jamabandi entries of Khasra No. 139 Ext.P2 placed on record. Khasra No. 139 is recorded in the ownership of State of H.P. and in possession column revenue entry has been recorded as general path. Court has also perused jamabandi Ext.P1 placed on record. As per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 Ext.P1 placed on record Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140 recorded in ownership of Himachal Government and in possession column entry of Charand Jungle Dehati (Grazing forest of locals) recorded. It is proved that Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate Bilaspur vide document Ext.P5 has issued direction to SHO to restrain the defendants from raising any construction over land comprised in Khasra No. 140/1. It is also proved on record that Halqua Patwari and Field Kanungo have submitted the report to Tehsildar that defendants are encroaching upon Khasra No. 140/1 by way of digging which is Charand Dehati (Grazing land of villagers). Testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4 are also corroborated by documentary evidence i.e. Ext.PW4/A placed on record. 12. In view of the fact that Khasra No. 139 is recorded as general path in record of rights i.e. jamabandi for the year 1998-99 Ext.P2 and in view of the fact that Khasra Nos. Testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4 are also corroborated by documentary evidence i.e. Ext.PW4/A placed on record. 12. In view of the fact that Khasra No. 139 is recorded as general path in record of rights i.e. jamabandi for the year 1998-99 Ext.P2 and in view of the fact that Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140 recorded as Charand Dehati (Grazing land of villagers) as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 Ext.P1 it is held that plaintiff being resident of same village has legal right of ingress and egress upon general path situated in Khasra No. 139 without any obstruction and it is held that plaintiff being inhabitant of village has legal rights to use the grazing land of villagers situated in Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140. See AIR 1965 SC 1147 title The Municipal Board Manglaur vs. Mahadeoji Maharaj. See AIR 2004 Madras 492 title Perumal Naicker vs. Rathina Naicker and another. See AIR 2005 Andhra Pradesh 357 title Thudimella Lakshminarayana and another vs. Thummala Narasaih Naidu and another. In view of above findings point No.1 of substantial question of law is partly decided in favour of appellant. Findings upon point No. 2 of substantial question of law with reasons 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that jamabandi Ext.P1 and jamabandi Ext.P2 placed on record are prepared by public official in discharge of official duty and are relevant facts under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and on this ground appeal be accepted is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that none has legal right to obstruct the general path in any manner and it is well settled law that none has legal right to raise construction in grazing land kept for grazing the animals of villagers. In present case halqua Patwari and field Kanungo have submitted the report that defendants are encroaching upon Khasra No. 140 by way of digging Court is of the opinion that grant of prohibitory injunction is essential in present case under Section 38(3)(d) of Specific Relief Act 1963 in order to avoid multiplicty of judicial proceedings inter se the parties. Point No. 2 of substantial question of law is decided accordingly. Findings upon point No. 3 of substantial question of law with reasons 14. Point No. 2 of substantial question of law is decided accordingly. Findings upon point No. 3 of substantial question of law with reasons 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that in view of judgment of previous suit wherein right of adverse possession claimed by defendants had been negatived, the defendants could not be allowed to obstruct the passage and could not be allowed to interfere with right of plaintiff in grazing land is also decided accordingly for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that Banta deceased predecessor-in-interest of defendants through defendants filed civil suit No. 131/1 of 1994 title Banta through LRs vs. State of H.P. and another relating to suit land i.e. Khasra Nos. 136 and 140 situated in village Dhar Tatoh Pargana and Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. and claimed right of adverse possession over suit land i.e. Khasra Nos. 136 and 140. Learned Trial Court negatived the plea of right of adverse possession qua Khasra Nos. 136 and 140 and judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was affirmed by learned District Judge Bilaspur on 23.11.2001 in civil appeal No. 66 of 1999 titled Banta(Deceased) through LRs vs. State of H.P. It is held that in view of above stated judgment and decree defendants could not be allowed to obstruct the general path situated in Khasra No. 139 and defendants could not be allowed to create any obstruction in charand Jungle Dehati (Grazing land of villagers) situated in Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140. It is held that plaintiff has legal right to use the general path situated in Khasra No. 139 being resident of village and plaintiff has also legal right to seek relief under Specific Relief Act relating to Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140 for usage of grazing land being resident of village. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant is also entitled for decree of demolition of structure raised during the pendency of suit is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Appellant/plaintiff did not adduce any positive cogent and reliable evidence in order to prove that defendants have raised any construction during pendency of suit. There is no demarcation report on record in order to prove that defendants have raised any construction over suit land during the pendency of suit. Appellant/plaintiff did not adduce any positive cogent and reliable evidence in order to prove that defendants have raised any construction during pendency of suit. There is no demarcation report on record in order to prove that defendants have raised any construction over suit land during the pendency of suit. No site plan of construction placed on record. Hence relief of mandatory injunction sought by plaintiff for demolition of structure is declined in the ends of justice. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents that State of H.P. is owner of Khasra Nos. 136, 138, 139 and 140 and State of H.P. has not been impleaded as co-party in present suit and on this ground appeal be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Plaintiff did not seek any relief against State of H.P. Plaintiff did not file any suit for declaration. Plaintiff has simply filed suit for injunction against defendants. Plaintiff has sought the injunction against defendants on the ground that plaintiff is one of residents of village and plaintiff has legal right to use general path situated in Khasra No. 139 and plaintiff has legal right to use grazing land situated in Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140. In view of the fact that plaintiff did not seek any relief against State of H.P. and plaintiff did not file suit for declaration against State of H.P. it is held that State of H.P. is not necessary party in present suit because present suit is only suit for prohibitory injunction against the defendants. It is well settled law that suit of injunction could be filed against person against whom cause of action is accrued to plaintiff. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit because plaintiff is not owner of suit land as per record of right placed on record and on this ground appeal be dismissed is rejected bieng devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the jamabandi i.e. record of right placed on record. As per jamabandi Khasra No. 139 is Sare-aam rasta (General path). Plaintiff is resident of village and plaintiff has legal right of passage from Khasra No. 139. Court has perused entry of Khasra No. 136, 138 and 140. Court has carefully perused the jamabandi i.e. record of right placed on record. As per jamabandi Khasra No. 139 is Sare-aam rasta (General path). Plaintiff is resident of village and plaintiff has legal right of passage from Khasra No. 139. Court has perused entry of Khasra No. 136, 138 and 140. As per record of right i.e. jamabandi Ext.P1 placed on record Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140 is Charand jungle Dehati (Grazing rights of villagers). It is held that plaintiff being villager has legal right of grazing over Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140. Hence in view of above stated facts it is held that plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit against defendants. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents that plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit against the defendants is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that aggrieved person can file civil suit for prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction as per Specific Relief Act 1963. There is grave fear in the mind of plaintiff that defendants would obstruct the Sare-aam rasta (General path) situated in Khasra No. 139 and there is grave apprehension in the mind of plaintiff that plaintiff would change the nature of Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140 from Charand Jungle Dehati (Grazing right of villagers). It is well settled law that plaintiff can file suit for injunction under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act 1963 against defendants whenever there is any threatening to plaintiff right relating to enjoyment of property or when defendants invade the plaintiff right in suit property relating to enjoyment of property. In present case plaintiff has proved by way of testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 corroborated by documentaries evidence that there is invasion and there is threatening to plaintiff right for enjoyment of suit property. Hence it is held that plaintiff has cause of action to file present suit against the defendants. In present case plaintiff has proved by way of testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 corroborated by documentaries evidence that there is invasion and there is threatening to plaintiff right for enjoyment of suit property. Hence it is held that plaintiff has cause of action to file present suit against the defendants. It was held in case report in 1999 (1) Civil Court Cases 650 (Karnataka) title Lakshmamna vs. M.P. Krishappa and others that if any aggrieved person comes to Court complaining interference by defendants qua his legal right and if fear stands heavily in the mind of aggrieved person then there should be no difficulty for Court to grant of decree of prohibitory injunction under Specific Relief Act 1963. Point No.3 of substantial question of law is decided accordingly. Relief 19. In view of above findings appeal is partly allowed. Relief of prohibitory injunction is passed in favour of appellant against the respondents restraining the respondents not to damage general path situated in Khata No. 580 min, Khatauni No. 662, Khasra Nos. 139 as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 situated at village Dhar Tatoh District Bilaspur H.P. Relief of prohibitory injunction is also granted in favour of appellant and against the respondents and respondents are restrained from changing the nature of land or raising any construction over land comprised in Khata No. 580 min, Khatauni No. 661, Khasra Nos. 136, 138 and 140 as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 situated in village Dhar Tatoh District Bilaspur (H.P.). Relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of structure is declined. Judgment and decree of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court are modified to this extent only. Parties to bear their own costs. Learned Registrar Judicial will prepare decree sheet strictly in accordance with law. File of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of judgment and decree sheet. RSA No. 143 of 2007 is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.