JUDGMENT Mr. Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. —The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 4.3.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P, in Civil Appeal No.111 of 2005, whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, District Mandi, in Civil Suit No.94/2002, dated 1.3.2005. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to call as ''the plaintiff'') is a statutory authority and is carrying on the functions of H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority. The respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to call as ''the defendant'') has allotted plot No.66, in Housing Colony Bhiuli, Mandi, after allotment of the plot, defendant No.1 executed Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement with the plaintiff and the possession was delivered to defendant No.1, with the terms and conditions that he will not convey its right, title or interest, over the tenement allotted without prior permission of the plaintiff. The plan of the building proposed to be constructed to the board for its approval, which was approved on 7.12.1984 and defendant No.1 constructed the building, as per the approved plan. Defendant No.1 transferred his right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.2 through registered Sale Deed dated 24.5.2001 in contravention to an utter disregard of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 16.5.1983 and conveyance deed dated 20.6.1988. Defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1, started unauthorized construction since last week of August, 2001 by making addition and alternation in the aforesaid building constructed by defendant No.1 over Plot No.66, on 1.9.2001, when it came to the notice of plaintiff, defendant dismantled the internal partition wall, thereafter, plaintiff issued notice dated 30.9.2001 to defendant No.1, but the unauthorized construction was not stopped and stair case, a bath room and rear eaves (chhaja) in the ground floor and a room on eaves (chhaja), stair case on the first floor have been constructed unauthorisedly by the defendant. 3. The suit is resisted and contested by defendant No.2 alleging that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and not maintainable. 3. The suit is resisted and contested by defendant No.2 alleging that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and not maintainable. On merits, it has been contended that replying defendant has not made any unauthorized construction and he was having no knowledge of the purchase of plot by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. As per the revenue record, defendant No.2, was absolute owner-in-possession of the land/house situated at Shiulu and being satisfied qua the title of defendant No.1. The replying defendant has purchased her land/house through registered Sale Deed dated 24.5.2001 and since then the replying defendant is absolute owner-in-possession of the suit property. 4. The learned trial Court framed following issues : "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, as prayed ?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his act and conduct ? OPD. 7. Whether the defendant is bona fide purchaser, if so its effect ? OPD. 8. Relief." 5. The learned trial Court after deciding Issue Nos.1 & 2 against the plaintiff, Issue Nos.3 to 7 against the defendants, dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved thereby the plaintiff maintained first appeal before the learned District Judge, Mandi, assailing the findings of learned Court below being against the law and without appreciating the evidence and pleading of the parties to its true perspective. However, the learned Appellate Court below affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Now, the appellant has maintained the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted on the following questions of law : "1. Whether the subsequent purchaser of a plot from the original allottee of appellant-authority is bound by the terms and conditions qua construction on the plot entered into between the appellant-authority and the original allottee. 2. Whether appellant-authority can be denied grant of relief of injunction on the ground that allotment of plots has been done by it without reference to Khasra numbers. 3. 2. Whether appellant-authority can be denied grant of relief of injunction on the ground that allotment of plots has been done by it without reference to Khasra numbers. 3. Whether the learned Courts below have totally mis-read and mis-appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 4. Whether the learned Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no proper description of suit property. 5. Whether violation of terms and condition of conveyance deed entitles the appellant authority for decree of relief of injunction when it is proved on record that construction has been carried out in violation of the terms and conditions." 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has argued that the learned Courts below has failed to interpret the documents correctly and not appreciated the evidence to its true prospective and the law is not applied correctly. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 9. PW-1 Rakesh Sharma, Xen, H.P. Housing Board, Mandi, has deposed that Plot No.66 was allotted to defendant No.1, as per allotment letter Ex.PW1/A, defendant executed Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement Ex.PW1/B and also executed a conveyance deed Ex.PW1/C. However, in the month of August 2001 without taking approval from the plaintiff-board, defendant started unauthorized construction and constructed a toilet, stair case, room and store. The defendant dismantled the inner wall. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the board has not given any information to the revenue department about Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement. He has further admitted that when defendant No.2 purchased the property from defendant No.1, she was absolute owner-in-possession of the same. PW-2 Sohan Singh, Senior Assistant, has proved on record copy of deed Ex.PW1/C. PW-3 Vinod Kumar Gupta, Junior Engineer has deposed that defendant dismantled inner wall and made additional construction without approval of the board. The defendant constructed bath room and stair case in the ground floor. Defendant also constructed stair case, room and store on the first floor without any approval of the board. Defendant Roop Chand, (DW-1) while appearing in the witness box has deposed that he purchased the property from Krishna Sharma (defendant No.1) on 24.5.2001 through registered Sale Deed Ex.DA, when he purchased the property defendant No.1 was owner-in-possession of the same. Defendant also constructed stair case, room and store on the first floor without any approval of the board. Defendant Roop Chand, (DW-1) while appearing in the witness box has deposed that he purchased the property from Krishna Sharma (defendant No.1) on 24.5.2001 through registered Sale Deed Ex.DA, when he purchased the property defendant No.1 was owner-in-possession of the same. Defendant No.2 raised construction of bath room, as depicted ''EFGH'' in the site plan Ex.PW3/A, on the main sewerage line, which is creating problem to the general repair and maintenance of the colony sewerage. Whereas, PW-1 Rakesh Sharma, Xen, H.P. Housing Board, has deposed that the defendant constructed the stair case on sewerage hole. The plaintiff himself is not aware about the nature of construction being raised by defendant No.2. The possession of Plot No.66, was delivered to defendant No.1 on 18.5.1989 and defendant No.1 constructed the building, as per approved plan in the year 1985, whereas defendant No.2 started unauthorized construction in the last week of August, 2001. The plaintiff has proved on record letter dated 3.9.2001 Ex.PW1/G issued to Smt. Krishna Sharma (defendant No.1) informing that she has started unauthorized construction by dismantling the internal partition wall. The plaintiff has also proved on record another letter dated 6.11.2001 Ex.PW1/F informing defendant No.2 that he has started unauthorized construction by dismantling the internal partition wall without getting the plan approved. 10. The possession of plot No.66 was delivered to defendant No.1 on 18.5.1989 and defendant No.1 constructed the building, as per approved plan, in the year 1985, whereas defendant No.2 started unauthorized construction in the last week of August, 2001. The plaintiff has proved on record, letter dated 6.11.2001 Ex.PW1/F, which was written by the plaintiff to Roop Chand, defendant No.2 informing that he has raised unauthorized construction by dismantling the internal partition wall without getting the plan approved. From these letters, it is quite clear that the plaintiff-board was not aware up to 3.9.2001, as to whether the unauthorized construction has been raised by defendant No.1 or defendant No.2. It is admitted by the plaintiff in the pleading that defendant No.1 constructed the house in the year 1985, as per approved plan and defendant No.2 purchased the said property from defendant No.1 through registered Sale Deed. It is admitted by the plaintiff in the pleading that defendant No.1 constructed the house in the year 1985, as per approved plan and defendant No.2 purchased the said property from defendant No.1 through registered Sale Deed. The plaintiff has also proved on record map Ex.PW3/A, prepared by PW-3 Vinod Kumar, Junior Engineer, but the same does not give any description to identify the suit property, as neither the Khasra number nor the description of the boundary or number has been given in the said map. Though, the area of unauthorized construction has been shown, but how the said area was measured and who measured this area, there is no evidence to that extent. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove on record that defendant No.2 after purchasing the house started unauthorized construction. 11. Thus, from the above discussions, it is clear that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the defendant has raised any unauthorized construction in plot No.66 in violation to the terms and conditions, as contained in Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and in violation to the approved plan. The evidence of the plaintiff is not convincing, reliable, trustworthy and its oral evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence. On the other hand, evidence of the defendant is convincing, reliable and trustworthy and the defendant has been able to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record by the plaintiff. The plaintiff''s Officer who appeared in the witness box was not aware about such type of construction raised on the spot and there is no exact description of the unauthorized construction. Both the approved maps and plans admittedly in the custody of plaintiff-board, but purposely the plaintiff has not proved the same before the learned Court below, in accordance with law. There may be some other position, if the document has come on record and what claim is being maintained by the plaintiff. The agreement entered in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 also do not show that nothing has come with regard to such type of construction and has left out by defendant No.2 while raising construction, those maps and plans are in the custody of plaintiff-board and are not proved, as per law. 12. The agreement entered in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 also do not show that nothing has come with regard to such type of construction and has left out by defendant No.2 while raising construction, those maps and plans are in the custody of plaintiff-board and are not proved, as per law. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case, as set up by them, so substantial question of law No.1, is answered accordingly holding that though defendant No.2 is bound by the terms and conditions, however, the plaintiff has failed to prove that what conditions were violated, no relief could be granted to the plaintiff-board. Substantial question of law No.2, is decided accordingly holding that Khasra number was not required to be mentioned, but the exact description of the property was required in order to give mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff-board and against the defendants, as the plaintiff has failed to prove the exact location of the property. The findings of the learned Court below refusing the grant of mandatory injunction, needs no interference. Substantial question of law No.3, is answered accordingly holding that the learned Court below has given a specific reason, after appreciating the documents, which have come on record and law has been applied correctly. Substantial question of law No.4, is decided accordingly holding that the unauthorized construction was not proved with description on the land where it stood, this Court finds that the learned Court below has not erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no description to the suit property. The plaintiff has failed to prove any unauthorized construction in violation of the Rules, so the learned Court below has committed no illegality in refusing the mandatory injunction, so substantial question of law No.5, is decided accordingly. 13. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is without merit and deserves dismissal. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own cost (s). Pending application (s), if any shall also stands disposed of.