Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 188 (HP)

Girdhari Lal v. Amin Chand

2017-03-16

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the record, are that the appellants-plaintiffs (herein after referred to as the ‘plaintiff’), filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he be declared in exclusive possession of the land comprised in Khata No.29, Khatauni No.65, Khasra No.479, measuring 0-01-11 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94, situated in Mohal Dohag, Mauza Gumber, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) as co-sharer and he is entitled to remain in exclusive possession, the entries to the contrary be declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his exclusive possession over the suit land or from raising construction. Plaintiff also claimed a decree for mandatory injunction to remove the foundation from the suit land. 3. It is averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that ½ of land comprised in Khasra No.479, measuring 6 marlas, was owned by Kishanu and others and remaining ½ share was owned by Dilu, but total land of said Khasra No.479 was recorded in possession of original plaintiff, Sant Ram, as a tenant without payment of rent with the consent of aforesaid owners. It is further averred by the plaintiff that during the consolidation operation, the land comprised in Khasra No.479 (old Khasra No.255) was put in the share of Dilu and the same was recorded in the ownership of Dilu, but the possession of the same remained to be recorded in exclusive possession of original plaintiff Sant Ram. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on the death of Dilu, his sons and one daughter succeeded him in equal shares to the said land, but Sant Ram remained in possession of the same as a co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share and as a tenant to the extent of 3/4th share. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on the death of Dilu, his sons and one daughter succeeded him in equal shares to the said land, but Sant Ram remained in possession of the same as a co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share and as a tenant to the extent of 3/4th share. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that Smt.Chinti Devi daughter of Dilu gifted her 1/4th share in favour of Sant Ram, as a result of which Sant Ram became a co-sharer to the extent of ½ share over the said land comprised in Khasra No.255, but he remained in possession as a tenant over the remaining ½ share of the suit land. It is further averred that the suit land was a part of old Khasra No.255, which is recorded in possession of Sant Ram as a co-sharer. It is averred by the plaintiff that the defendant purchased ½ share of the suit land from Piar Chand son of Bhagat Ram and Jagdish, as a result of which the defendant became co-sharer with the plaintiff to the extent of ½ share in the suit land, but defendant never came in possession over any portion of the suit land. To the contrary, Sant Ram, original plaintiff, continued to be in exclusive possession over whole of the suit land as a co-sharer to the extent of ½ share and as a tenant to the extent of remaining ½ share. It is further claimed that on the death of original plaintiff Sant Ram, his sons and widow, who were substituted as legal representatives of Sant Ram, succeeded to the share of Sant Ram in the suit land as well as to his tenancy rights and, as such, they are entitled to remain in exclusive possession and the entries showing the suit land in joint possession of all the co-sharers are wrong, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that under the garb of said wrong entries, the defendant dug out and laid foundation of a shop in the suit land and in his absence collected construction material and completed the construction during the pendency of the suit. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that under the garb of said wrong entries, the defendant dug out and laid foundation of a shop in the suit land and in his absence collected construction material and completed the construction during the pendency of the suit. In the alternative, it is also claimed by the plaintiff that, if he fails to prove his exclusive possession over the suit land, even then a co-sharer has no right to raise any new construction till the suit land is partitioned by metes and bounds. In the aforesaid background the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the learned trial Court. 4. Defendant, by way of filing written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground of cause of action and estoppel. On merits, it is averred by the defendant that Dilu, father of the plaintiff Sant Ram, and others were owners in possession of the suit land. Dilu had three sons, namely, original plaintiff Sant Ram, Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram and one daughter Smt. Chinti Devi. It is alleged by the defendant that Smt.Chinti Devi gifted her 1/4th share in favour of plaintiff Sant Ram and, thus, he became a co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of ½ share. It is further alleged by the defendant that after the death of Bhagat Ram, his son Piar Chand succeeded to his share in the suit land and said Piar Chand sold his share to Chingo, who further sold the same to the defendant. Thus, the defendant became a co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share and Jagdish Chand remained a co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share. It is further pleaded that there was one shop covering about two and half marlas of land, which was given by the plaintiff to the defendant on rent. It is alleged by the defendant that in the month of November, 1994, Sant Ram, plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the shop and build his own shop in vacant portion of the suit land. It is alleged by the defendant that in the month of November, 1994, Sant Ram, plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the shop and build his own shop in vacant portion of the suit land. Since defendant was owner to the extent of 1/4th share i.e. an area of one and half marlas and the vacant portion of the land was in possession of Jagdish Chand, an another co-sharer, the defendant approached Jagdish Chand, who sold his 1/4th share to the defendant on 09.01.1995 and handed over the possession of entire remaining portion of the suit land. In this way, the defendant became owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of ½ share. It is alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff was pressurizing him for vacation of his shop, hence, the defendant laid the foundation of a shop and a room behind it in the month of February, 1995 on persuasion of the plaintiff himself and in his presence he constructed the shop and, after construction of the same, vacated the shop of the plaintiff and handed over the possession of ½ portion of the shop on 07.07.1995 by raising separation wall. On the basis of said averments, defendant claimed that the original plaintiff Sant Ram never remained in exclusive possession of the suit land as a tenant. In the aforesaid background the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit land and the entries to the congtrary in the revenue record are wrong and incorrect, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD. 5. Relief.” 6. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.06.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 7. OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD. 5. Relief.” 6. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.06.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, appellants-plaintiffs filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) read with Section 21 of the H.P. Courts Act assailing therein judgment and decree dated 07.06.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, who, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid background, the present appellants-plaintiffs filed this Regular Second Appeal before this Court, details whereof have already been given above. 8. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “(1) Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties particularly the revenue records P12, P13 and P11 and the report of the Local Commissioner D1 to D3. 2. Whether on the material on record, the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records P12 P13 and P11 was rebtted more particularly in view of the provisions of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and land Reforms Act and also the presumption of continuity of the tenancy had been rebutted. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for permanent and prohibitory injunction when the construction was sought to be carried out during the pendency of the case and the appellant could be denied the discretionary relief of injunction.” 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 10. This Court, with a view to explore answer to the substantial questions of law, as referred hereinabove, as well as to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of submissions/arguments having been advanced by learned counsel representing the parties, carefully perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof clearly suggests that there is no force in the arguments having been made by Shri Rajnish K.Lall, learned counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs, that Courts below, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, misread and mis-appreciated the evidence. This Court, after close scrutiny of evidence, is convinced and satisfied that both the Courts below have meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. Documentary evidence in the shape of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 placed on record by the plaintiff would go to show that original plaintiff; namely; Sant Ram, was recorded in the suit land as non-occupancy tenant without payment of rent and he continued to be recorded as such in the suit land, as emerged from the entries reflected in copies of Jamabandies for the years 1958- 59 and 1972-73 (Exts.P-12 & P-13). However, perusal of Misalhaquiat for the year 1976-77 (Ex.P-2) clearly suggests that settlement took place in the year 1976-77, wherein during settlement operation, Khasra No.255 was given new Khasra No.479, i.e. suit land, which came to be recorded in joint ownership and possession of Sant Ram i.e. original plaintiff and his brothers Jagdish Chand, Bhagat Ram and sister; namely; Smt.Chinti Devi in equal shares. 11. Mr.Lall vehemently argued that plaintiff was recorded as tenant over the suit land since the year 1954-55 till settlement i.e. year 1976-77 and as such he was entitled to be recorded thereafter in the same capacity and entry showing him not as a tenant in possession is wrong and incorrect. But aforesaid arguments of Shri Lall deserve outright rejection because if Jamabandies for the years 1954-55, 1958-59 (Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-11) are perused carefully, it clearly emerge that nature of land is shown to be an Abadi deh whereupon original plaintiff Sant Ram was recorded as non-occupancy tenant without payment of rent with the consent of the land owners. But aforesaid arguments of Shri Lall deserve outright rejection because if Jamabandies for the years 1954-55, 1958-59 (Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-11) are perused carefully, it clearly emerge that nature of land is shown to be an Abadi deh whereupon original plaintiff Sant Ram was recorded as non-occupancy tenant without payment of rent with the consent of the land owners. Similarly, perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties clearly suggests that there is no dispute that Dilu, who happened to be father of the original plaintiff Sant Ram, was actually inducted as tenant over the suit land. There is no other evidence led on record, be it ocular or documentary, by the plaintiff suggestive of the fact that plaintiff himself was ever inducted as a tenant over the suit land and as such this Court sees no force in the contention of Shri Lall that since plaintiff was shown as a non-occupancy tenant in the earlier entries i.e. prior to Jamabandi for the year 1993-94, he was entitled to be recorded as such during consolidation operation as well as in future also. 12. If pleadings available on record as well as testimonies of PW-1 Girdhari Lal and PW-4 Parmod Singh, who happened to be legal representatives of original plaintiff Sant Ram, are perused juxtaposing revenue record, Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13, it clearly emerge that suit land was originally owned and possessed by Krishanu and Others to the extent of half share and Dilu to the extent of remaining half share. It is also undisputed between the parties that during consolidation operation, the suit land was partitioned and allotted to Dilu, who died leaving behind Sant Ram i.e. original plaintiff, Jagdish Chand, Bhagat Ram and Smt.Chinti Devi. There is no dispute that all aforesaid legal representatives of Dilu inherited the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share each. Smt.Chinti Devi gifted her 1/4th share to the original plaintiff Sant Ram, on the basis of which mutation No.379 came to be attested and sanctioned, as a result of which Sant Ram i.e. original plaintiff became owner to the extent of ½ share of the suit land. It is also admitted case of the parties that Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram remained owners to the extent of 1/4th share each. It is also admitted case of the parties that Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram remained owners to the extent of 1/4th share each. Bhagat Ram died leaving behind Piar Chand as his only legal heir, to whom his 1/4th share on the suit land was shifted. Similarly, this Court sees no rebuttal, if any, to the positive assertion of the defendant that Piar Chand son of Bhagat Ram sold his 1/4th share in the suit land in favour of Chingo, who further sold the same to the defendant herein. It is own case of the plaintiff, as projected in the plaint, that Jagdish Chand, who happened to be son of late Dilu, also sold his 1/4th share in the suit land to the defendant, as a result of which defendant herein became owner to the extent of ½ share in the suit land. 13. True, it is that original plaintiff Sant Ram stood recorded in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant without payment of rent with the consent of land owners, as reflected in Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 (Ex.P-13) and he continued to be recorded as such till 1958- 59 and thereafter in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73. But, in settlement, which took place in the year 1976-77, old Khasra No.255 was given new Khasra number 479 and it came to be recorded in joint ownership and possession of Sant Ram i.e. original plaintiff and his brothers Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram in equal shares. Perusal of Ex.P-6 i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 suggests that Sant Ram and Jagdish Chand were recorded as co-owners of the other joint land but in exclusive possession of different Khasra numbers of the joint land as co-sharers. However, as per entries incorporated in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 (Ex.P-1), the suit land stood recorded in joint ownership and possession of Sant Ram and after his death in the name of his legal representatives to the extent of ½ share and rest of ½ share of the suit land stood recorded in the ownership of defendant. 14. This Court sees no force in the contention of Mr.Lall that changes in the revenue entries were made without there being any basis. 14. This Court sees no force in the contention of Mr.Lall that changes in the revenue entries were made without there being any basis. At first instance Settlement Authorities during settlement operation themselves verified the factual possession on the spot and on the basis of actual possession on the spot recorded the land in the joint ownership of co-owners, who were admittedly legal representatives of Dilu. Similarly, there is no dispute with regard to purchase of shares of Bhagat Ram and Jagdish Chand i.e. legal representatives of deceased Dilu, by the defendant, as a result of which he became co-owner to the extent of ½ share of suit land. There is no evidence on record suggestive of the fact that steps, if any, were ever taken by either legal representatives of plaintiff or by plaintiff himself, laying therein challenge to change made in the revenue entries in Misalhaquiat for the year 1976-77 (Ex.P- 10), wherein joint ownership and possession of Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram, legal representatives of Dilu, were recorded in equal shares alongwith original plaintiff Sant Ram; meaning thereby entries as referred above attained finality. 15. As per own case of the plaintiff, Smt. Chinti Devi i.e. legal representative of Dilu gifted her share in favour of original plaintiff Sant Ram, as a result of which he became owner of the suit land to the extent of ½ share. Aforesaid factum of gift having been made in favour of plaintiff by Smt.Chinti Devi, clearly suggests that plaintiff was not aggrieved with the revenue entries made in the year 1976-77 after settlement operation and as such suit land continued to be in joint ownership and possession of parties. It was in the year 1993-94, when change in revenue entries was made, whereby name of defendant came to be recorded as joint owner in possession of the suit land alongwith the plaintiff. Careful perusal of Ex.P-6 clearly suggests that Jagdish Chand sold his share in favour of defendant and accordingly mutation was attested and sanctioned in his favour and as such there is no force in the arguments of Sh.Rajnish K. Lall that change in revenue entries, as reflected in Jambandi for the year 1993-94, is without any basis. 16. Careful perusal of Ex.P-6 clearly suggests that Jagdish Chand sold his share in favour of defendant and accordingly mutation was attested and sanctioned in his favour and as such there is no force in the arguments of Sh.Rajnish K. Lall that change in revenue entries, as reflected in Jambandi for the year 1993-94, is without any basis. 16. Similarly, this Court sees no document placed on record by the plaintiff suggestive of the fact that change, if any, in revenue entries was made by authorities concerned between year 1976-77 till 1993-94 and since there was no dispute between the plaintiff and other legal representatives of Dilu i.e. Jagidsh Chand and Bhagat Ram and legal representatives of Bhagat Ram, entries made after settlement in the year 1976-77 continued till 1993-94. Since Jagdish Chand sold his share to plaintiff in the year 1993-94, his name came to be recorded as joint owner in possession of the suit land alongwith original plaintiff in the revenue record. Most importantly, nature of the suit land, as emerged from the record, is Gair Mumkin Dukan and as such perusal of documentary evidence, as discussed above, clearly establish on record that original plaintiff Sant Ram is not recorded as a tenant after the year 1958-59 and hence claim of his legal representatives that they are tenants qua the suit land to the extent of ½ share is wholly misconceived. 17. Perusal of depositions, having been made by PW-4 Promod Singh and PW-5 Babu Ram, is very material, who in their statements have categorically stated that they are aware of the settlement operation in the village, which took place in the year 1975-76. They also stated that possession of persons is recorded properly. Hence, this Court is of the view that since there is a long standing revenue entries showing original plaintiff Sant Ram as well as Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram as co-owners and in possession of ½ share each, it cannot be said that deceased plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land as Gair Maurusi Tenant. Needless to say that to prove the tenancy, there must be some agreement between the landlord and tenant, but in the instant case no agreement, if any, entered into between the deceased plaintiff and original owner of the land is available on record. 18. Needless to say that to prove the tenancy, there must be some agreement between the landlord and tenant, but in the instant case no agreement, if any, entered into between the deceased plaintiff and original owner of the land is available on record. 18. PW-4 Promod Singh son of deceased plaintiff though claimed the cultivating possession of his father over the suit land as a tenant without payment of any galla, but denied his relationship, if any, with landlord. But, as observed above, there must be certain terms and conditions to constitute tenancy. Hence learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased plaintiff never remained tenant over the suit land to the effect of ½ share after the year 1958-59. Similarly, there is no evidence that after 1958-59, deceased plaintiff remained tenant over the suit land to the extent of 3/4th share as claimed in the plaint because admittedly there is no revenue record for intervening period between the year 1958-59 to the year 1975-76. 19. Shri Lall was unable to point out any material available on record suggestive of the fact that deceased plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the suit land as tenant till his death in the month of October, 1995, whereas, entries, as recorded in the revenue record, clearly proves on record that Jagdish Chand, who happened to be brother of deceased plaintiff continued to be in joint possession of the suit land alongwith other co-sharers including the deceased plaintiff and defendant. Similarly, Bhagat Ram was also in possession of the suit land as a co-owner alongwith the deceased plaintiff and other co-sharers. Hence, the learned Courts below rightly came to conclusion that there is no reason to discard long standing revenue entries right from the year 1972-73 till 1993-94. Moreover, in para-3 of the plaint, PW-1 Girdhari Lal son of deceased plaintiff has himself admitted the possession of the defendant over ½ share of the suit land. He also admitted the ownership of the defendant and stated that defendant constructed the shop over the suit land forcibly. PW-4 Promod Singh brother of PW-1 Girdhari Lal though deposed that defendant started interfering in the suit land in the month of July, 1995, whereas, PW-1 Girdhari Lal during his cross-examination has admitted that defendant laid foundation of the shop over the disputed portion of the suit land in the moth of February, 1995. PW-4 Promod Singh brother of PW-1 Girdhari Lal though deposed that defendant started interfering in the suit land in the month of July, 1995, whereas, PW-1 Girdhari Lal during his cross-examination has admitted that defendant laid foundation of the shop over the disputed portion of the suit land in the moth of February, 1995. 20. PW-1 Girdhari Lal though claimed that, during the pendency of the suit, defendant constructed the shop over a part of the suit land, but he in his cross-examination admitted that there was one “Kharpel posh” shop which was removed and slates were put in the said shop. PW-3 Dharam Chand in his cross-examination admitted that deceased was a tailor by profession and doing the tailoring work in the shop of the plaintiff. While claiming relief of injunction, PW-1 Girdhari Lal, PW-2 Jagat Ram and PW-3 Dharam Singh deposed before the Court that defendant raised construction on the other vacant portion of the land during the pendency of the suit, whereas PW-4 Promod Singh son of original plaintiff as well as PW-5 Babu Ram stated that over half share of the suit land there is a double storyed house of the plaintiff and rest of the suit land was vacant on spot. Though plaintiff as well as witnesses adduced by him claimed that no shop of the defendant is in existence over the suit land, but it is not understood that why plaint was amended and relief of demolition of shop constructed by the defendant in the suit land was sought and prayed for. Even perusal of report of the Local Commissioner Ex.D-3 suggests that during his visit foundation of the shop was already there. As per report, one old shop was also in existence and other shop was being raised by the defendant. 21. Similarly, there is nothing in the plaint that defendant raised shop, if any, on any more valuable portion of the suit land, rather, documents available on record suggests that suit land is one filed. Plaintiff has nowhere proved on record that defendant or his predecessor-in-interest were enjoying the possession of the suit land, rather with own admission of plaintiff as made in the plaint as well as in his deposition before the Court, it appears that original plaintiff Sant Ram was in possession of old shop adjacent to which defendant proposed to raise construction. Plaintiff has nowhere proved on record that defendant or his predecessor-in-interest were enjoying the possession of the suit land, rather with own admission of plaintiff as made in the plaint as well as in his deposition before the Court, it appears that original plaintiff Sant Ram was in possession of old shop adjacent to which defendant proposed to raise construction. Similarly, there is no averment, if any, in the plaint made by the plaintiff that defendant had no right, title or interest on the suit land. 22. This Court also carefully perused the following case law pressed into service by Shri Lall in support of his contention:- 1. Kaushalya Devi & Ors vs. Sito Devi and Others, 2014(2) Him.L.R. 768. 2. Ashok Kumar vs. Satya Devi, 2013(2) Him.L.R. 1164 3. Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and Others, AIR 1961 (Pb) 220. 23. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law that whenever there is any conflict between the revenue entries, it is the later entry which must prevail. It is also settled law that presumption of truth is attached to the later entries, but the same is rebuttable one and it would stand rebutted by the fact that the alteration in the later entries was made un-authorisedly or mistakably, there being no material to justify the change of entries. 24. But, in the instant case, as has been discussed hereinabove, settlement took place in the year 1976-77 and during settlement operation Khasra No.255 was given new Khasra No.479 and suit land came to be recorded in joint ownership and possession of original plaintiff and his brothers Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram in equal shares and since then it continued to be in their joint ownership and possession till the year 1993-94, when Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram sold their respective shares to the extent of 1/4th each to defendant, who lateron became owner to the extent of ½ share alongwith original plaintiff as reflected in the year Jamabandi for the year 1993-94. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that entry as reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 is not a stray entry without there being any basis, rather it clearly emerge from the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 that mutation was attested and sanctioned in favour of defendant after sale of share of Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram in his favour. Hence, it cannot be accepted that change is reflected in the year 1993- 94 was without any basis. 25. Similarly, it is well settled that till the land is partitioned amongst the co-sharers, all the co-sharers are entitled to use every inch of the land and they are owners in possession of entire land. But, in the instant case, there is nothing in the pleadings of the plaintiff that defendant has raised shop, if any, on the more valuable portion to the detriment of the plaintiff. Rather, as per own admission of the plaintiff, it clearly emerged that defendant proposed the construction on the land adjacent to shop of plaintiff which was already on the spot. Perusal of report filed by the Local Commissioner suggests that the suit land is one field and plaintiff is in possession of bigger share than that of defendant. Hence, this Court sees no application of aforesaid law cited by learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs in the instant case. 26. Interestingly, in the instant suit, plaintiff, while claiming himself to be in exclusive possession of the suit land as a co-sharer, prayed that entries, as reflected in Jambandi for the year 1994-94 showing defendant as a co-owner to the extent of ½ share, be declared null and void, but nowhere laid any challenge to the entries, as reflected in Misalhaquiat for the year 1976-77 (Ex.P-2), wherein suit land came to be recorded in joint ownership and possession of original plaintiff Sant Ram and his brothers Jagdish Chand, Bhagat Ram and sister Chinti Devi in equal shares. Rather, as per own case of the plaintiff, Chinti Devi, legal representative of Dilu, gifted her share to him raising his share from 1/4th to ½ in the suit land. Rather, as per own case of the plaintiff, Chinti Devi, legal representative of Dilu, gifted her share to him raising his share from 1/4th to ½ in the suit land. Since there was no dispute, if any, between original plaintiff Sant Ram and his brothers Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram and their legal representatives, entries, as reflected in Misalhaquiat for the year 1976-77 (Ex.P-2), continued till year 1993-94, when admittedly, name of defendant came to be recorded as co-owner in possession to the extent of ½ share on the basis of sale admittedly made by Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram of their respective shares to the defendant. Since plaintiff failed to lay any challenge to sale made by Jagdish Chand and Bhagat Ram, he cannot be allowed to say that entries, as reflected in Jamabandi for the year 1993-94, were abrupt and without any basis. 27. This Court is fully satisfied that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , to case supra, wherein the Court has held as under: “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 28. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record. Similarly, this Court sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the Court below that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that he was inducted as tenant over the suit land by original owner. 29. No relief of permanent prohibitory injunction could be granted in favour of plaintiff in view of his own admission that defendant had laid foundation of shop in February, 1995 i.e. prior to institution of suit, with his consent, whereas, defendant, while filing written statement to the plaint, specifically admitted that he has already laid foundation in February, 1995 with the consent of plaintiff. Hence, all the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 30. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.