JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.50-S/13 of 2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Theog, District Shimla, H.P., whereby suit for permanent prohibitory injunction having been filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) was dismissed, however, it was ordered that the plaintiff and his brother be not evicted therefrom except in due course of law. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction praying therein to restrain the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants’) from dispossessing him as well as raising any construction upon the land comprised in Khasra No.52, measuring 0-07-60 hectares, situated in Chak Sainj, Pargana Jais, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’). It is alleged by the plaintiff that he alongwith his brother Budhi Ram is in settled possession of the suit land for the last 22 years, which was given to them in family arrangement by their mother; namely; Smt.Shobni. Plaintiff further claimed that land in question was given to them by Smt.Shobni since she was being maintained by them. Plaintiff further stated that Smt.Shobni had filed a Civil Suit bearing RBT No.54-1 of 2004/2003 for injunction against him as well as his brother, which was dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chopal Camp at Theog on 14.10.2004. As per plaintiff, he alongwith his brother was found to be in possession of the suit land in the aforesaid Civil Suit having been filed by Smt.Shobni. Plaintiff further averred that defendant No.1 is alleged to have purchased a part of the suit land from Smt.Shobni and mutation was also attested on 16.09.2004 vide mutation No.98, but, said sale was a paper transaction as no possession was ever handed over to defendant No.1 because plaintiff and his brother were in settled possession of the suit land. Plaintiff further claimed that since defendant No.1 through defendants No.2 and 3 started interfering in the suit land, he was compelled to file suit, as described hereinabove, seeking therein relief of permanent prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction. 3. Plaintiff further claimed that since defendant No.1 through defendants No.2 and 3 started interfering in the suit land, he was compelled to file suit, as described hereinabove, seeking therein relief of permanent prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction. 3. Defendants, by way of detailed written statement, refuted the aforesaid claim having been put forth by the plaintiff and stated that plaintiff as well as his brother had no right, title or interest over the suit land and they are also not in possession of the suit land. Defendants further averred that Smt.Shobni was owner of the suit land and she had sold the entire land to different persons including defendant No.1, who had also purchased suit land vide registered sale deed dated 25.08.2004 for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. Defendants further claimed that on the basis of aforesaid sale deed, mutation was attested in favour of defendant No.1 and he was also given possession. In nutshell, defendant No.1 claimed himself to be bonafide purchaser for consideration. Defendants further averred that construction was started in the month of April, 2005 and thereafter pillars were constructed and huge material was collected by defendant No.1 for raising construction and at no point of time objection, if any, was raised to the construction by the plaintiff and as such he has every right to raise construction over the suit land. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction? OPP. 3. Whether defendant No.1 is bonafide purchaser for consideration? OPD.” 5. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, however, ordered that the plaintiff as well as his brother be not evicted from the suit land except in accordance with law. 6. Plaintiff Ganga Ram, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of his suit, preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.50-S/13 of 2006. 6. Plaintiff Ganga Ram, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of his suit, preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.50-S/13 of 2006. Learned District Judge accepted the appeal having been filed by the plaintiff and held him entitled to relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land till they are lawfully evicted. 7. In the aforesaid background, defendants approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court. 8. This Court admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. When the Defendant-Appellant acquired title to the suit property from rightful title holder through registered sale deed, which document recited the delivery of possession of the land sold, was the lower appellate court justified in granting the relief of injunction to the plaintiff, who had not legal right over the property, especially when the plaintiff himself was deriving the right of possession from the same owner? 2. Was not it necessary for the plaintiff to challenge the sale deed in favour of defendant in the suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction when the title was lawfully vested in defendant? Have not the entries in revenue record lost their presumption of truth on account of recital in the deed of sale, disentitling the plaintiff to seek injunction against the true owner, especially when there was no cogent evidence justifying the claim of the plaintiff to be in settled possession? 3. When the plaintiff has not arrayed his brother namely Shri Budhi Ram as party to the suit have not the courts below acted in erroneous and perverse manner recorded findings in favour of plaintiff and his brother to be in possession by wrongly placing reliance on the entries in the revenue record, which were not proved to be recorded in accordance with law and also relying on Ex.P-1 which had no effect of the controversy in question?” 9. Mr.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants, vehemently argued that impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court are highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against law and facts and as such are liable to be set aside. Mr.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants, vehemently argued that impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court are highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against law and facts and as such are liable to be set aside. While referring to the aforesaid impugned judgment having been passed by learned first appellate Court, Mr.Gupta contended that learned lower appellate Court committed grave illegality and irregularity while reversing the well reasoned findings of the learned trial Court, whereby suit having been filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed in toto. Mr.Gupta, further contended that entries existing in the revenue record were assailed by the defendants-appellants because same were without any basis. 10. Mr.Gupta further stated that findings of learned lower appellate Court below that the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff-respondent are apparently erroneous and perverse, rather, contrary to the recital made in the sale deed as well as in the mutation entered and attested in favour of defendant No.1. Mr.Gupta contended that title of the property vested in defendant No.1 by virtue of sale deed and as such suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent without there being any challenge to sale made by Smt.Shobni was not competent and as such same was rightly dismissed by learned trial Court below. 11. While concluding his arguments, Mr.Gupta, strenuously argued that bare perusal of pleadings as well as evidence, be it ocular or documentary available on record, suggests that both the Courts below misread and misconstrued the same and wrongly arrived at conclusion that possession of disputed property denoted by Khasra No.52/2/3, admittedly, purchased by defendant No.1 is also with the plaintiff. Mr.Gupta further contended that learned trial Court rightly refused injunction to the plaintiffrespondent because he was not having any title to the suit property, but Court below wrongly placed reliance upon the judgment and decree Ex.P-1, while concluding that plaintiffrespondent is in possession of the suit land. Mr.Gupta, contended that since defendant successfully proved by way of documentary evidence on record that he is in possession of the suit land, there was no occasion for Courts below to have recorded arbitrary, illegal, erroneous and perverse findings that the plaintiff and his brother Budhi Ram are in possession of the suit land. In the aforesaid background, Mr.Gupta prayed for dismissal of the suit. 12. In the aforesaid background, Mr.Gupta prayed for dismissal of the suit. 12. Mr.J.S. Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, while supporting the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court, vehemently argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same, rather, the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. With a view to refute aforesaid contentions having been made by Mr.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellants, Mr.Chandel made this Court to travel through findings returned by the learned trial Court, wherein learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, has categorically held that plaintiff and his brother are in possession of the suit land. 13. Mr.Chandel further contended that it is an admitted fact that decision of Civil Suit RBT No.54- 1/2004/2003 came to be passed on 14.10.2004, whereas sale deed Ex.DA was executed in favour of defendant No.1 on 25.08.2004. He further contended that in the aforesaid litigation, plaintiff and his brother were found to be in possession of the suit land. Accordingly, learned trial Court, though dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, but categorically observed that it was bounden duty of defendant No.1 to prove as to when and how Smt.Shobni came in possession and delivered possession to him on execution of sale deed Ex.DA. 14. Mr.Chandel further invited the attention of this Court to Ex.P-1, copy of Misalhaquiat for the year 1998-99, to demonstrate that name of plaintiff and his brother appeared in column of possession and there is no documentary evidence led on record by the defendants suggestive of the fact that the aforesaid entry, validly showing the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land, was ever rectified or changed in accordance with law at the behest of defendants. Mr.Chandel further contended that though there is a mention of delivery of possession by Mrs.Shobni in favour of vendee in the sale deed Ex.DA, but mere recital in the sale deed was not sufficient to prove the possession on the spot because plaintiff by placing on record Ex.P-2 successfully proved on record that possession of the suit land was with him prior to sale made by Mrs.Shobni in favour of defendants. Mr.Chandel, while referring to the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, forcefully contended that since plaintiff successfully proved on record his possession over the suit land, learned trial Court ought to have granted decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 16. During proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the pleadings, evidence on record as well as submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties, perusal whereof clearly suggests that Smt.Shobni had appointed DW-2 Sh.Het Ram as her Power of Attorney, who allegedly sold the suit land vide sale deed Ex.DA in favour of defendants. But perusal of copy of judgment Ex.P-2 clearly suggests that Smt.Shobni had filed Civil Suit bearing RBT No.54-1 of 2004/2003 against the plaintiff as well as his brother, claiming herself to be exclusive owner in possession of the land denoted by Khata No.108, Khatauni Nos. 142 and 143, Khasra Nos.52 (subject matter of instant suit) 56, 81, 158, 159, 160, 191, 607, 609 and 165, Kitta 10, measuring 1-35-13 hectares, situated in Chak Sainhj, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, which came to be dismissed on 14.10.2004. In the aforesaid suit, she claimed herself to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit land for the last 20 years. 17. Most importantly, in the suit, as referred hereinabove, Smt.Shobni also stated that during settlement operation defendants (present plaintiff and his brother Budhi Ram) changed the entry in the column of possession without the consent and permission of the plaintiff because she never parted with legal possession at any time nor gave suit land to the defendants exclusively for cultivation. Civil Court, while hearing Civil Suit bearing RBT No.54-1 of 2004/2003, framed following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants are interfering with the suit land without any right, title or interest? OPP. 3. Relief.” 18. However, fact remains that aforesaid issues were decided against Smt.Shobni (plaintiff therein) and she was not held to be owner in possession of the suit land, which is also the subject matter of the present case. In the aforesaid suit, defendants therein (plaintiff and his brother herein) were held to be in possession of the suit land. 3. Relief.” 18. However, fact remains that aforesaid issues were decided against Smt.Shobni (plaintiff therein) and she was not held to be owner in possession of the suit land, which is also the subject matter of the present case. In the aforesaid suit, defendants therein (plaintiff and his brother herein) were held to be in possession of the suit land. It is also undisputed that sale deed Ex.DA, allegedly made in favour of defendants at the behest of Smt.Shobni, was executed on 25.8.2004 i.e. before final judgment in Civil Suit RBT No.54-1 of 2004/2003. This Court sees substantial force in the arguments having been made by Shri J.S. Chandel, learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff, that once vide judgment dated 14.10.2004, Ex.P-2, plaintiff and his brother were held to be in possession of the suit land, how possession, if any, qua the suit land, could be delivered to defendants as recited in sale deed Ex.DA. 19. Needless to say that it was incumbent upon defendant No.1 to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that at the time of execution of sale deed dated 25.8.2004, Smt.Shobni was owner in possession of the suit land and she had delivered the same to him at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.DA. Though defendant No.1, with a view to prove his possession over the suit land, examined DW-1 Balia and DW-2 Het Ram, but, careful perusal of their statements made before the Court nowhere suggests that defendant was able to prove on record that at the time of execution of sale deed dated 25.8.2004 Smt.Shobni was owner in possession of the suit land. There is no evidence led on record by defendants to establish that at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.DA, Smt.Shobni was lawful owner of the land and as such recital made in the sale deed that defendant was put to possession is of no consequence. DW-1 Balia simply stated that defendant purchased land from Smt.Shobni and he had seen the revenue record that he purchased the land, but he further stated that possession was that of Het Ram, which is contrary to record. Similarly, Het Ram, DW-2 son of Smt.Shobni and brother of plaintiff also stated that he had sold suit land vide sale deed Ex.DA to defendant No.1. Similarly, Het Ram, DW-2 son of Smt.Shobni and brother of plaintiff also stated that he had sold suit land vide sale deed Ex.DA to defendant No.1. He also admitted that suit was earlier filed for injunction against Budhi Ram and his brother and same was dismissed. Most importantly, aforesaid witness stated that when he sold the land, he did not see the possession, as recorded in revenue record. True it is that DW-3 Budhi Ram and DW-4 Rama Nand, marginal witnesses, proved sale deed Ex.DA and similarly there is a reference of delivery of possession in favour of the vendor, but recital in sale deed may not be sufficient to prove actual possession over the land. 20. Mere recital in the sale deed that possession was delivered at the time of execution of sale deed was not sufficient to conclude that vendor was in possession of the suit land at the time of executing sale deed, especially, in view of specific findings returned by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.RBT 54-1 of 2004/2003, whereby, admittedly, plaintiff there (Smt.Shobni Devi) was not held to be owner in possession vide judgment dated 14.10.2004. To the contrary, defendants therein (plaintiff herein and his brother) were held to be in possession of the suit land and as such it is not understood how learned trial Court on the basis of sale deed Ex.DA dated 25.8.2004 could conclude that defendant was put into possession pursuant to aforesaid sale deed. 21. At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that though by way of placing reliance on sale deed Ex.DA defendant No.1 made an attempt to prove on record that he acquired title of the property from Smt.Shobni, but as has been discussed above, there is no evidence led on record by defendant suggestive of the fact that at the time of execution of sale deed dated 25.8.2004 Smt.Shobni had authority to execute sale deed being lawful owner of the property. Apart from above, there is no evidence, as has been discussed above, suggestive of the fact that pursuant to sale deed Ex.DA defendant No.1 put into possession by Smt.Shobni because admittedly at the time of execution of the aforesaid sale deed, Civil Suit RBT No.54-1 of 2004/2003 was pending before the Court having been filed by Smt.Shobni, wherein admittedly she was not held to be owner in possession of the suit land vide judgment dated 14.10.2004. 22. True, it is that ordinarily no injunction can be granted against true owner, but in the instant case defendant admittedly failed to prove on record that he became true owner pursuant to sale deed Ex.DA dated 25.08.2004 because, as per own case of defendant, he purchased suit land from Smt.Shobni Devi vide aforesaid sale deed, who failed to prove her title before the competent Court of law in Civil Suit RBT No.54-1 of 2004/2003. Once the title of original vendor; namely; Smt.Shobni was under clout in aforesaid Civil Suit, there was no occasion for her to make sale of the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 and moreover she was not held to be owner in possession of the suit land in those proceedings. Hence, this Court sees substantial force in the arguments of Shri J.S. Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, that once Smt.Shobni was not held to be owner in possession of the land how defendant No.1 can claim to have title qua the suit land on the basis of sale deed Ex.DA. 23. Similarly, this Court sees no force in the contention of Shri Neeraj Gupta that while seeking relief for prohibitory and mandatory injunction against defendant qua the suit land, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to lay challenge to the sale deed made in favour of defendant because it is none of the case of the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of the suit land, rather their simplicitor case is that they are in possession over the suit land for so many years and they cannot be evicted forcibly, save and except, in accordance with law. 24. Moreover, there is nothing in pleadings or in evidence led on record by plaintiff, suggestive of the fact that plaintiff disputed the title of the defendant over the suit property. 24. Moreover, there is nothing in pleadings or in evidence led on record by plaintiff, suggestive of the fact that plaintiff disputed the title of the defendant over the suit property. Plaintiff, while setting up a case before the trial Court, stated that defendant alleged to have purchased part of the suit land from Smt.Shobni and to that effect mutation has been attested vide mutation No.98 dated 20.8.2004, but, such transaction is merely paper transaction because no possession was ever transferred and since then the same is with the plaintiff and his brother. Undoubtedly, there is recital in the sale deed with regard to delivery of possession of the suit land, but, as has been observed above, same could not be termed sufficient for holding that defendant was in actual physical possession of the suit land. Ex.P-1, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1998-99, clearly suggests that names of plaintiff and his brother are recorded in column of possession and as such entry could not be changed merely on the basis of sale deed Ex.DA, rather, defendants ought to have filed appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law seeking possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed Ex.DA. 25. True it is, that plaintiff has not arrayed his brother, namely, Budhi Ram, as party in the suit but perusal of Ex.P-1 clearly proves on record that name of Budhi Ram is also recorded alongwith his brother, who happens to be plaintiff in the present case, in the column of possession. Similarly, perusal of Ex.P-2 i.e. judgment dated 14.10.2004 passed by Civil Court in suit having been filed by Smt.Shobni also proves on record that Shri Buidhi Ram was in possession of the suit land alongwith his brother i.e. plaintiff and as such this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the findings of Courts below, whereby Shri Budhi Ram has also been held to be in possession of the suit land along with his brother; namely; Ganga Ram. 26. Leaving everything aside, it also emerge from the judgment passed by learned trial Court in instant suit having been filed by the plaintiff that the learned Court below while declining the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of plaintiff held him to be in possession of the suit land. 26. Leaving everything aside, it also emerge from the judgment passed by learned trial Court in instant suit having been filed by the plaintiff that the learned Court below while declining the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of plaintiff held him to be in possession of the suit land. But, interestingly no challenge, whatsoever, was ever laid to the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial Court by the defendants, rather, aforesaid judgment dated 03.05.2006 passed by trial Court was accepted by the defendant without any demur and as such findings with regard to possession of the plaintiff over the suit land attained finality. Substantial questions are answered accordingly. 27. After carefully examining the pleadings as well as record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned first appellate Court appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and has rightly come to the conclusion that once plaintiff has successfully proved on record that he is in possession of the suit land, relief of injunction ought to have been granted against the defendant, especially, when defendant who claimed himself to be true owner, failed to prove on record that at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.DA, original vendor; namely; Smt.Shobni Devi was the owner in possession of the suit land. Otherwise also it is well settled that nobody ought to be condemned unheard and a person in settled possession will not be dispossessed except by due process of law. 28. In this regard reliance is placed upon Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Others vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs., (2012)5 SCC 370 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “61. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important for ascertaining the title and possession of the property in question. 62. Possession is an incidence of ownership and can be transferred by the owner of an immovable property to another such as in a mortgage or lease. A licensee holds possession on behalf of the owner. 63. Possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the Court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the Court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum. 64. 63. Possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the Court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the Court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum. 64. There is a presumption that possession of a person, other than the owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is permissive on behalf of the title-holder. Further, possession of the past is one thing, and the right to remain or continue in future is another thing. It is the latter which is usually more in controversy than the former, and it is the latter which has seen much abuse and misuse before the Courts. 65. A suit can be filed by the title holder for recovery of possession or it can be one for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction requiring a person to remove himself or it can be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession. Due process of Law 79. Due process of law means that nobody ought to be condemned unheard. The due process of law means a person in settled possession will not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Due process means an opportunity to the defendant to file pleadings including written statement and documents before the Court of law. It does not mean the whole trial. Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated upon by a competent Court.” 29. Exposition of law, as referred hereinabove, suggests that due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent Court. It further suggests that ejectment from settled possession can only be ordered by recourse to a Court of law and person in settled possession cannot be ejected without a Court of law having adjudicated upon his rights qua the true owner. But, in the instant case, where the plaintiff, who had filed suit for prohibitory injunction, though was denied decree of injunction by trial Court below but was held to be in possession of suit land. Court below, while holding plaintiff to be in possession of suit land, further directed that he be evicted in accordance with law. But, in the instant case, where the plaintiff, who had filed suit for prohibitory injunction, though was denied decree of injunction by trial Court below but was held to be in possession of suit land. Court below, while holding plaintiff to be in possession of suit land, further directed that he be evicted in accordance with law. Aforesaid findings qua possession as well as directions with regard to eviction in accordance with law were never challenged by the appellants-defendants in any of the proceedings. Hence, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the findings of learned Court below. 30. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court below is upheld and that of the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.