JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant, who was the defendant before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the defendant”), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No. 30-G/XIII/2005, whereby judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 137 of 2000, was set aside. 2. Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the respondent, who was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiff”) instituted a suit against the defendant, under Sections 38 & 39 of the Specific Relief Act for perpetual and prohibitory injunction. He prayed that the defendant be restrained from digging foundations, raising construction and changing nature of the land, shown in site plan, marked ABCDEFGH and also from blocking the path, as shown in pink colour, in the site plan, comprised in Khata No. 158 min, Khatauni No. 164 min, Khasra No. 384, measuring 0-07-29 hectares, as described in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1997-98, situated in Mohal and Mauza Kohasan, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter to the called as “the suit land”). The plaintiff has also claimed a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to restore the land to its original position by demolishing the structure, if the defendant succeeded in raising construction over the said portion of the land. 3. By filing written statement, the defendant resisted and contested the suit of the plaintiff and raised preliminary objections qua maintainability and estoppel. On merits, the defendant has admitted the suit land to be Abadi Deh, however he termed rest of the averments made in the plaint to be incorrect. As per the defendant, the plaintiff is not a co-sharer in the suit land nor does any path passes through the suit land. He has contended that his house is in existence over the suit land, thus he has every right to raise construction thereupon. He has further contended that the foundation of his house in the suit land has been laid down prior to the filing of the present suit, without there being any objection on the part of the plaintiff. He has contended that his house is in existence over the suit land, thus he has every right to raise construction thereupon. He has further contended that the foundation of his house in the suit land has been laid down prior to the filing of the present suit, without there being any objection on the part of the plaintiff. As per the defendant, the suit land is Abadi land, which was old Abadi of the defendant, on which the new foundation has been raised by him. Lastly, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned Trial Court on 20.12.2001 framed the following issues for determination and adjudication: “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for better particulars? OPD 6. Relief.” 5. After deciding issues No. 1 to 5 in negative, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff maintained an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which was allowed. Hence the present regular second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned first Appellate Court has not committed grave error in completely ignoring the evidence and report of the Local Commissioner-PW-2? 2. Whether the plaintiff’s suit was not liable to be dismissed as there was incomplete description of the property?” 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned first Appellate Court is perverse and without appreciating the facts, which have come on record and the same is required to be set aside. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is as per law and needs no interference. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record carefully. 8. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and placed on record Jamabandi, Ext. P-1, which shows that the suit land is recorded as Abadi Deh. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record carefully. 8. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and placed on record Jamabandi, Ext. P-1, which shows that the suit land is recorded as Abadi Deh. He has also placed on record copy of Sajra Nasab for the year 1997-98, showing pedigree table. Further the plaintiff has placed on record site plan, Ext. PW-8/A, showing area ABCDEFGH, qua which the present suit has been filed. He deposed that the parties have their residential houses in the Abadi Deh land, which is joint. As per the plaintiff, from the Deodi, as shown in the site plan, there is a passage and qua this passage, the ancestors of the parties had entered into a compromise. He has deposed that besides this passage, there is no other passage to their house and if the defendant succeeds in raising his house over this passage, the passage to their house would be closed. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that they have inherited the Abadi ‘Lal Lakir’ land of Babu Ram. However, he cannot produce any document pertaining to land inherited from his father Gian Chand. He has deposed that he purchased the suit land and Abadi land from Vishwanath about 6-7 years ago. He has further deposed that heirs of Babu Ram have inherited his property, however he cannot produce any document regarding their inheritance. 9. Sh. Lalit Uppal, Advocate (appointed by the Court to inspect the suit land), has appeared in witness box as PW-2 and proved on record inspection report, Ext. PW- 2/A and statements of the parties and witnesses, Ext. PW- 2/B, Ext PW-2/C and Ext. PW-2/D. As per inspection report, Ext. PW-2/A, construction of four rooms and fresh foundations upto two layers of stones were found at the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that on the foundation, no passage was found. 10. Sh. Krishan Kumar, has appeared in the witness box as PW-8 and deposed that he has prepared site plan, Ext. PW-8/A. However, he admitted that he has not shown length of the passage on the map. In his cross-examination, he deposed that on the foundation, no passage was found. 10. Sh. Krishan Kumar, has appeared in the witness box as PW-8 and deposed that he has prepared site plan, Ext. PW-8/A. However, he admitted that he has not shown length of the passage on the map. He has further admitted that on the vacant land, shown in the site map, there were foundations of the defendant, however he denied that in order to prejudice the case of the defendant, he has intentionally not shown the foundations in the site plan. 11. PW-3, Sh. Gurdas Ram, by filing his proof affidavit, under Section 18, Rule 4 CPC, supported the case of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the plaintiff has not inherited the land from his father, however he has purchased it from Vishwanath about 6-7 years ago. He has deposed that ½ portion of the plaintiff’s house falls in the Abadi land and ½ of it falls in the land purchased from Vishwanath. This witness has admitted that adjacent to the plaintiff’s land, there is ‘Gohar’. He has further admitted that on Abadi land of Babu Ram, defendant Mohan Lal is in possession and he has houses on both sides of the courtyard. He has also admitted that he and other residents of the area pass through the ‘Gohar’ and then go to the plaintiff’s place. 12. PW-4, Jyoti Prakash (brother of the defendant), has also supported the case of the plaintiff and in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no share over the passage of the suit land. He has deposed that Gian Dev (father of the plaintiff) has not inherited any of the land owned by the family and Ramesh and suresh have also not inherited anything. He has admitted that he and his brother had purchased the Abadi and other land of Gian Dev. He has further admitted that where defendant had laid foundations, there was old house and ‘Deodi’ of Babu Ram. 13. PW-5, Om Prakash (other brother of the defendant), in his cross-examination, has admitted that he is having civil litigation with the defendant. He has further admitted that his father had exchanged Abadi at Dehra. PW-6. He has further admitted that where defendant had laid foundations, there was old house and ‘Deodi’ of Babu Ram. 13. PW-5, Om Prakash (other brother of the defendant), in his cross-examination, has admitted that he is having civil litigation with the defendant. He has further admitted that his father had exchanged Abadi at Dehra. PW-6. Priya Vrat, in his cross-examination, deposed contrary to plaintiff’s deposition and denied that Gian Dev did not inherit any land from Babu Ram and Ramesh and Suresh also did not inherit anything from their father. PW-7, Amar Nath, in his cross-examination, has admitted the right of defendant, Mohan Lal over the land, on which, he has dug up the foundations. 14. Conversely, defendant, Mohan Lal, has stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and in his cross-examination, he admitted that ‘Lal Lakir’ has been inherited by Babu Ram and Jagat Ram from Kirpa Ram, but Gian Dev has not inherited any property from Babu Ram. He denied that ‘Lal Lakir’ was inherited by Vishwanath from Jagat Ram, however he has stated that Vishwanath, son of Jagat Ram was also owner of Khasra No 384, i.e. the suit land. He has further denied that the plaintiff and his brother had purchased all the share of Vishwanath, including the suit land, recorded as ‘Lal Lakir’. He has also denied that there is no alternative passage to go to the house of the plaintiff, however he has stated that there is a different passage. He has further denied that in May, 2000, he dug foundations over the land from where, there is a passage leading to the house of the plaintiff. 15. DW-2, Prem Sagar, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the suit land is ancestral property of both the parties. He has further admitted that when one goes forward from ‘Deodi’, then the land, where the defendant had dug foundations comes and then there is courtyard of the defendant, then there is a house of the plaintiff, however he has stated that the plaintiff had purchased a separate passage for his house. He denied that if the defendant will raise house over the suit land, the passage to the house of the plaintiff would be closed. 16. DW-3, Prithi Chand, has deposed that at the time of digging foundations, no one has objected and at that time there was no passage from the suit land. He denied that if the defendant will raise house over the suit land, the passage to the house of the plaintiff would be closed. 16. DW-3, Prithi Chand, has deposed that at the time of digging foundations, no one has objected and at that time there was no passage from the suit land. In his cross-examination, he admitted that both plaintiff and defendant pass through ‘Deodi’ to go their houses. He has further admitted that if house is raised on disputed passage, passage to the house of the plaintiff would be closed. 17. The learned trial Court has taken Deodi as part of the house, in fact Deodi is passage, which the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate and findings recorded to this effect are perverse. The plaintiff has asserted that the land shown vide letters ABCDEFGH in spot map, Ext. PW-8/A is vacant land, upon which earlier there was a Deodi, i.e. entrance to the houses or Abadi, situated in the suit land, now the Deodi has collapsed and through the same place, the path leads to his house. He has further asserted that the defendant has started raising construction over the same and if he continued to raise construction, it would block the path. Whereas, the defendant in his affidavit, Ext. DW-1/A and while appearing as DW-1, has deposed that the plaintiff has no concern with the land shown by letters ABCDEFGH, in the spot map, Ext. PW-8/A. He has further deposed that on the said land, there was an old house of his father Babu Ram, which has collapsed and in both sides of vacant land, there are houses. 18. In view of the entries made in the copy of Sajra Nasab, it has been established that Kirpa had three sons, namely Babu Ram, Jagta and Ganga Ram, whereas Gian Dev had two sons, namely Ramesh Chand and Suresh. Defendant, Mohan Lal has admitted that Vishwanath, father of PW-6, Priyavrat, was the brother of his father Babu Ram and Vishwanath was succeeded by PW-6, Priyavrat. He has also admitted that the suit land was inherited by Babu Ram and Jyoti Ram from their father Kirpa Ram, which proves that the suit land was owned by Babu Ram and Jagat Ram. Babu Ram succeeded by his sons and Jagat Ram was succeeded by Vishwanath. He has also admitted that the suit land was inherited by Babu Ram and Jyoti Ram from their father Kirpa Ram, which proves that the suit land was owned by Babu Ram and Jagat Ram. Babu Ram succeeded by his sons and Jagat Ram was succeeded by Vishwanath. From the evidence on record, it stands fully established that the suit land is joint inter se the parties to the suit and other co-sharers, i.e. brothers of the defendant and Vishwanath. The defendant could not prove or led any evidence that the suit land has been partitioned between the parties. 19. This Court in Kewal Krishan & another vs. Amrit Lal has enumerated the rights of co-sharers, which are as under: “(a) A co-owner/co-sharer has an interest/right in the whole property, i.e., in every inch of it. (b) Possession of joint property by one co-owner/co sharer, is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all, except one are actually out of possession. (c) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property by one co-sharer/co-owner does not amount to ouster of the other, as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all. This is subject to an exception when there is complete and conclusive ouster of a co-owner/co-sharer by another, but in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of such ouster, the possession of a co-owner/co–sharer must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other, i.e., when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and denies that of the other. (d) Lapse of time does not extinguish the right of the co owner/co-sharer ,who has been out of possession of the joint property ,except in the event of abandonment. (e) Every co-owner/co-sharer has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners/co-sharers. (f) Where a co-owner/co-sharer is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement/consent by the other co-owners/co-sharer , it is not open to any co-sharer/co-owner to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others, except by way of partition. (f) Where a co-owner/co-sharer is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement/consent by the other co-owners/co-sharer , it is not open to any co-sharer/co-owner to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others, except by way of partition. (g) Whenever there is severance of title and the parties have a long possession on the parcels of joint land ,as far as possible, the partition is required to be made in a manner that party in occupation, as far as possible, be adjusted in that portion or part of that. (h) Co-sharers/co-owners are expected to respect the right of others even when they are in settled possession on specific portion of the land in a manner that the easementary rights of the others are not obstructed. (i) The co-sharers/co-owners are required to respect the sentiments of each other to maintain peace among themselves. This is not only a legal, but a moral duty as well, which is required to be follow ed by the co sharers/co-owners and should be recognized as a right while adjudicating the rights of the parties, as the ultimate goal of the administration of justice is to maintain peace in the society, especially among the co-sharers/co-owners. (j) The eldest co-sharer/co-owner is duty bound to come forward and settle the dispute inter se any two or more co-sharers/co-owners after mediating. This is not only his duty as a co-sharer/co-owner being elder, but also his moral duty to spare some time, experience, mental faculties and the respect he command to mediate disputes among the co sharers/co-owners in order to achieve peace. The Courts can also make use of such process by taking help from the elder co-sharer/co-owner by asking him to mediate the matter, so that the peace is achieved among the co-shares/co-owners and ultimately in the society.” 20. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the plaintiff had purchased the share of Abadi Deh from Vishwanath and has become the joint owner of the suit land with the defendant and other co-sharers. However, the learned trial Court has taken a view that the plaintiff is claiming a path and as there is an alternative path, he cannot claim the same. However the learned first Appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiff was not claiming path in the form of easement of necessity, but it was by way of prescription. However, the learned trial Court has taken a view that the plaintiff is claiming a path and as there is an alternative path, he cannot claim the same. However the learned first Appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiff was not claiming path in the form of easement of necessity, but it was by way of prescription. It stands established that vacant land shown by letters ABCDEFGH is jointly owned and possessed by the parties and Deodi (threshold) which is main entrance, goes to the houses of all the co-sharers and no co-sharer can raise any type of construction over the suit land to block the path in question of other co-sharer in any manner. Accordingly, substantial question of law No. 1 is answered holding that the learned first Appellate Court has committed no error and the evidence on record, including the documents were properly appreciated, as it has been amply proved on record that the defendant is trying to raise construction on the Deodi. The learned first Appellate Courts has correctly appreciated the report of Local Commissioner and other evidence, as has come on record to its right perspective. Substantial question of law No. 2 is answered holding that the suit of the plaintiff was with all the necessary description of the property and he has also proved on record his case, so the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are after appreciating the facts, which have come on record and the law has been applied correctly. 21. The net result of the above discussion is that the instant appeal, sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of.