JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer/Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 138 of 2000 titled Bakshi Ram Vs. Tajdin as well as in Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2000 titled Tajdin Vs. Bakshi Ram dated 3.3.2007 vide which learned appellate court while dismissing the appeals so filed both by present appellant as well as present respondent upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge-II, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 61 of 1995 dated 30.6.2000 whereby learned the trial court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that land comprising khata No. 148min, khatauni No. 190, khasra No. 1251/708 measuring 0K-14 Marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92 situated in Tika Paplah, Mauza Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur was in possession of the plaintiff since last many years and that defendant was total stranger qua the suit land and he had no right, title or interest over the same. As per the plaintiff, defendant had his land adjoining to the suit land and he was trying to encroach upon the suit land by digging the same for the purpose of raising construction. According to the plaintiff, defendant had collected material over the suit land since last one week and was openly proclaiming that he would encroach upon the suit land by raising construction over it forcibly, to which he had no right to do so. It was further the case of plaintiff that he had requested defendant several times to desist from throwing illegal and unwarranted threats of raising construction and to admit the claim of the plaintiff but defendant had refused to admit the same. On these bases plaintiff filed the suit praying for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant from raising any construction over the suit land or interfering over the same. On these bases plaintiff filed the suit praying for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant from raising any construction over the suit land or interfering over the same. Further relief was also prayed that in case defendant succeeded in raising any construction over the suit land or any part thereof then in that event decree for possession by way of demolition of structure/construction so raised be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 3. By way of written statement defendant disputed the claim of the plaintiff. According to the defendant it was the plaintiff who was a total stranger qua the suit land and in fact the suit land was in the possession of the defendant from the time of his ancestors and he had become owner in possession of the same by afflux of time. Defendant denied that he was trying to encroach upon the suit land and according to the defendant it was the plaintiff who was digging the suit land and was trying to encroach over the same without any right title or interest. As per the defendant the suit in fact was filed with malafide intention only to harass and bring him into unnecessarily litigation. 4. By way of replication, the plaintiff reiterated his claim. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and material placed on record, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether in alternative the plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of demolition as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the defendant to file the suit? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit on account of his own acts and conducts? OPD. 7. Relief.” 6. Learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the said issues:- “Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : No. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Issue No.5 : No. Issue No.6 : No. Relief : Suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per operative portion of the judgment.” 7. OPD. 7. Relief.” 6. Learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the said issues:- “Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : No. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Issue No.5 : No. Issue No.6 : No. Relief : Suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per operative portion of the judgment.” 7. Learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.6.2000 decreed the suit of plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by learned trial court that whereas the case put up by the plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of the suit land from the time of his forefathers and defendant was stranger to it and was interfering over the suit land, the stand of the defendant was that he had become owner of the suit land by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Learned trial court took note of the fact that it was argued on behalf of the defendant that as per document Ext. D1 one Tota Ram was shown to be in possession of the suit land as non occupancy tenant and the tenancy of Tota Ram was neither terminated nor he was ejected from the suit land and thus subsequent entries reflecting the plaintiff to be in possession were fake entries and could not be relied upon. Learned trial court also took note of the fact that defendant’s contention was that after the death of Tota Ram, Smt. Zindi Devi remained in possession over the suit land and ultimately the same was inherited by defendant. Learned trial court held that undoubtedly Tota Ram was being reflected as non occupancy tenant over the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 1924-25 but remarks column of Ext. D1 demonstrated that said land was given to Smt. Achri in partition and there was no other entry except Ext. D1 that Tota Ram was a non occupancy tenant thereof. Learned trial court also held that cross examination of DW1 Bakshi Ram demonstrated that Tota Ram was the first husband of his mother who died after three months of marriage and later on his mother married Khamdi Ram i.e. the father of the defendant. D1 that Tota Ram was a non occupancy tenant thereof. Learned trial court also held that cross examination of DW1 Bakshi Ram demonstrated that Tota Ram was the first husband of his mother who died after three months of marriage and later on his mother married Khamdi Ram i.e. the father of the defendant. Learned trial court held that even if it is assumed that Tota Ram was non occupancy tenant over the suit land, it could not be said that tenancy rights were inherited by Zindi Devi as his wife, as it was the own case of the defendant that Zindi Devi married his father soon after the death of Tota Ram who died within three months of marriage. Learned trial court also held that once Zindi Devi married Khemdi Ram, she could not be treated as Tota Ram’s wife as she was thereafter Khemdi Ram’s wife. On these bases it was concluded by learned trial court that Zindi Devi could not have had inherited rights of deceased Tota Ram as once she had married Khemdi Ram, she ceased to be the wife of Tota Ram. Learned trial court also held that Achri Devi was owner of the suit land and it was plaintiff’s case that his father was inducted as tenant by Achri Devi where as the contention of defendant was to the contrary that it was he who had inherited the tenancy rights. Learned trial court held that evidence on record was evenly balancing and in fact both the parties were claiming to be in possession qua the suit land, therefore, documentary evidence assumed significance. Learned trial court further held that except Ext. D1 there was no revenue record reflecting Tota Ram to be in possession of the suit land and there was no revenue record reflecting defendant to be in possession over the suit land. Learned trial court also held that there was no question of ejectment of Tota Ram as he had died leaving behind none to inherit tenancy right. Learned trial court further held that in such a situation tenancy automatically came to an end and thereafter induction of father of plaintiff as tenant was reflected in Ext. P-5. Learned trial court also held that Ext. Learned trial court further held that in such a situation tenancy automatically came to an end and thereafter induction of father of plaintiff as tenant was reflected in Ext. P-5. Learned trial court also held that Ext. P-4 also demonstrated that Achri Devi was owner in possession over the suit land and it was somewhere in the year 1952-53 that defendant was shown to be in possession of the suit land along with one Subha Ram. Learned trial court also held that oral evidence as well as records reflected longstanding entry in the name of the plaintiff from1952-53 onwards which could not be overthrown on the basis of entries for the year 1924-25. Learned trial court further held that as after Zindi Devi married Tota Ram he died within three months of the marriage, there fore, she could not have had inherited tenancy rights of Tota Ram. Learned trial court also held that though plaintiff was recorded as tenant over the suit land yet he could not be recorded as tenant as there was no material on record which could be inferred that he was paying any rent. However it was held by learned trial court that as it stood proved that plaintiff was in possession over the suit land from 1952-53 onwards, therefore, the plaintiff could not be ejected by anyone except by real owner of the land by following due procedure of law. On these bases learned trial court held that plaintiff was entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction so it was decreed accordingly. 8. The judgment and decree so passed by learned trial court was assailed by both plaintiff as well as defendant. Learned appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 3.3.2007 while upholding the findings returned by learned trial court dismissed both the appeals. While dismissing the appeals it was held by learned appellate court that the simple case of the plaintiff was that he was in possession of the suit land and defendant was threatening to dig the same for the purpose of raising construction. Learned appellate court held that in order to prove this fact plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1 and deposed in the Court that he was in possession of the suit land and in the first week of March, 1995 defendant had started constructing toilet over the same despite his objections. Learned appellate court held that in order to prove this fact plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1 and deposed in the Court that he was in possession of the suit land and in the first week of March, 1995 defendant had started constructing toilet over the same despite his objections. Learned appellate court held that PW2 Surjan Singh had not supported the said contention of the plaintiff and in fact this witness deposed that both the parties to the suit claim and counter claim possession over the suit land. Learned appellate court held that PW3 Braham Dass supported that case of the plaintiff that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land much before the year 1947 but he did not state anything about any construction raised by the defendant. On these bases it was held by learned appellate court that two witnesses examined by plaintiff had not supported the claim of the plaintiff that defendant has constructed any toilet over the suit land. Learned appellate court further held that PW4 Tulsi Ram and PW5 Parshotam Dass examined in rebuttal also did not state anything about any construction having been raised by defendant over the suit land. On these bases it was held by learned appellate court that plaintiff in fact was not able to prove that defendant had raised any construction over the suit land and thus while dismissing the appeal filed by plaintiff, learned appellate court held that learned trial court had rightly held plaintiff not to be entitled to any mandatory injunction by way of demolition of any construction over the suit land. 9. As far as the appeal filed by defendant was concerned, it was held by learned appellate court that the stand of defendant was that it was he who was in possession of the suit land and rather the plaintiff was interfering with the possession of the defendant over the same. 9. As far as the appeal filed by defendant was concerned, it was held by learned appellate court that the stand of defendant was that it was he who was in possession of the suit land and rather the plaintiff was interfering with the possession of the defendant over the same. Learned appellate court held that in the grounds of appeal defendant had claimed himself to be tenant over the suit land and had claimed to have become owner qua the suit land by operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act but a perusal of written statement demonstrated that defendant had nowhere claimed himself to be occupancy tenant over the suit land nor he had stated therein that he had thereafter become owner of the same by way of operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Learned appellate court held that a perusal of the written statement demonstrated that defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit land without mentioning his status as to whether he was in possession thereof as a tenant or as owner or as encroacher and all that was stated in the written statement was that defendant was in possession over the suit land from the time of his ancestors and by afflux of time he had become owner of the same. On these bases it was held by learned appellate court that written statement was not clear as to what status defendant was claiming over the suit land qua his possession. Learned appellate court held that though defendant had tried to prove that he was in possession of the suit land and was tenant over the same and had inherited the tenancy rights from his ancestors, however, there was no pleading in the written statement and revenue records placed on record also did not demonstrate that it was the defendant who was in possession over the suit land in any capacity. Learned appellate court also held that defendant Bakshi Ram as DW1 had claimed that he was earlier tenant over the suit land and had become owner of the suit land subsequently but he could not remember when he started paying rent and till when he paid the same and he was also not aware as to when he became owner of the suit land. Learned appellate court held that the statement of defendant qua his possession over the suit land and also that he was a tenant over the same was highly doubtful and was not reliable. Learned appellate court also held that the other ocular evidence produced on record by defendant also did not further his case whereas PW1 to PW5 had categorically stated that plaintiff was in possession over the suit land. Learned appellate court also held that claim of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit land was also supported by documentary evidence i.e. Ext. P1 to P7 and all these documents reflected that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since 1961-62 onwards. On these bases it was held by learned appellate court that as plaintiff had proved his possession over the suit land, either as tenant or otherwise, he had a right to maintain a suit for injunction against a stranger to the suit land and in fact it stood proved on record that defendant was interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, though the construction as alleged by plaintiff was not proved against the defendant. Learned appellate court further held that the very fact that defendant was claiming himself to be in possession of the suit land, though actually he was not, itself was enough for the plaintiff to secure a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as claim of possession over the suit land by defendant itself amounts to interference with the possession of plaintiff over the suit land. On these bases learned appellate court upheld the findings returned by learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff. 10. Against the judgment and decree so passed by learned trial court though the plaintiff has not filed any appeal, however the same stands assailed by defendant by way of this Regular Second Appeal. 11. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 18.3.2008 on the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence, particularly, the pleadings of the parties and the documents P- 1 to P-7 and Ext. D-1 to Ext. D-6? 2. 11. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 18.3.2008 on the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence, particularly, the pleadings of the parties and the documents P- 1 to P-7 and Ext. D-1 to Ext. D-6? 2. Whether the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records stood rebutted and on the evidence on record the only irresistible conclusion which could be drawn was that the defendant-appellant was in possession of the property as owner as the land having been possessed by Tajdin, there after Jindi earlier as a tenant and now as owner and there being no relinquishment and abandonment of the tenancy rights of the appellant or their predecessors being ejected” 3. Whether the judgment of the courts below vitiated for non consideration of each of the issues separately and recording separate findings and in view of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in A.I.R. 2001 H.P. 18 State of H.P. Versus Om Parkash? 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as judgments passed by both the courts below. 13. I will deal with substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 together whereas the substantial question of law No. 3 shall be dealt with independently. 14. In the present case there are concurrent findings returned by both the learned courts below to the effect that whereas plaintiff has been able to demonstrate on the basis of ocular as well as documentary evidence that he was in possession over the suit land from the year 1961-62 onwards, however, defendant had failed to prove the same. Before I proceed further, it is relevant to mention at this stage that in the written statement so filed by defendant there was no stand taken therein by the defendant to the effect that earlier the defendant was a tenant over the suit land which tenancy he had inherited from his ancestors and thereafter proprietary rights were conferred upon him in accordance with law. The stand taken by defendant qua his possession in para No.1 of the written statement is quoted herein below:- “Denied being incorrect and false. The stand taken by defendant qua his possession in para No.1 of the written statement is quoted herein below:- “Denied being incorrect and false. The plaintiff is not in possession over the land comprising Khasra No. 1251/708, land measuring 0K-14 marlas, rather the plaintiff is totally stranger to theland in suit and has got no right, title and interest qua the land in suit. On the contrary the defendant Bakshi Ram is in possession over the land in suit from the time of his ancestors and by efflux of time he is owner in possession of the land in suit detailed above thus and para is being denied as incorrect.” 15. It also could not be disputed by learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments that defendant in fact is not son of Tota Ram but is son of Khindi Ram and though mother of defendant Smt. Zindi Devi was married to Tota Ram but within three months of said marriage Tota Ram died and thereafter Zindi Devi married Khindi Ram from the lions of whom present appellant was born. There is no evidence produced on record by the defendant from which it can be inferred that Zindi Devi inherited tenancy rights qua the suit land after the death of Tota Ram. It is again reiterated at the cost of repetition that in the written statement in fact no such stand was taken by him that earlier he was a tenant over the suit land and subsequently he was conferred upon proprietary rights as per the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 16. Now in this background when we peruse Ext. D1 to Ext.D5 these documents do not in my considered view further the cause of the appellant/defendant at all. Ext. D1 is a jamabandi for the year 1924-25 in which Tota Ram is reflected as non occupancy tenant. Ext. D2 which is a copy of missal haquiat for the year 1961-62 demonstrates that Tajdin son of Dasondhi is non occupancy tenant over the suit land along with one Subha. In Ext. D3 which is copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92 Tajdin is shown to be in possession of the suit land and Ext. D4 which is copy of jamabandi pertaining to the year 1928-29 does not pertain to the suit land as in Ext. In Ext. D3 which is copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92 Tajdin is shown to be in possession of the suit land and Ext. D4 which is copy of jamabandi pertaining to the year 1928-29 does not pertain to the suit land as in Ext. D1 khasra number of the suit land is 1080 (as it then was) measuring 1-8 big has which also stands reflected as such in Ext. D2, whereas khasra numbers mentioned in Ext. D4 are 1077, 1078 and 1079. (For clarification it is stated that new khasra No. of old khasra No. 1080 is khasra No. 1251/708 which was also reflected as so in Ext. D3.) Similarly Ext. D5 which is copy of Register Intkal Mauza No. 43150 dated 21.4.1928 is also of no assistance to the defendant because there after there are subsequent regular, long, continuous revenue entries in favour of the plaintiff reflecting him to be in possession over the suit land. Records of the case further demonstrate that defendant has exhibited only five documents and there is no Ext. D6 on record. 17. Now in this background when one adverts to Ext. P1 to P7 perusal of same demonstrates that in Ext. P1 which is copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92 pertaining to the suit land, Tajdin is reflected in the column of possession as being in possession of the suit land. Similarly Ext. P2 which is copy of khasra girdwabri from Kharif 1993 to Ravi 1994 also demonstrates that in column No. 3 of the same plaintiff is reflected to be in possession over the suit land. Ext. P3 is copy of jamabandi for the year 1924-25 in which Tota Ram is reflected as non occupancy tenant over the suit land and Ext. P4 is a copy of jamabandi for the year 1928-29 in which in the column of possession father of the plaintiff is reflected as non occupancy tenant. Similarly in Ext. P5 which is jamabandi for the year 1952-53 in the column of possession it is the plaintiff who is reflected to be in possession of the suit land as a non occupancy tenant and Ext. P6 copy of missal haquiat for the year 1961-62 is also to the same effect. Ext. P7 which is copy of jamabandi for the year 1981-82 also reflects plaintiff to be in possession over the suit land as non occupancy tenant. 18. P6 copy of missal haquiat for the year 1961-62 is also to the same effect. Ext. P7 which is copy of jamabandi for the year 1981-82 also reflects plaintiff to be in possession over the suit land as non occupancy tenant. 18. In the light of documentary evidence discussed above it cannot be said that the findings returned by both learned courts below that revenue records demonstrate that it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit land can be said to be perverse findings. In my considered view both the learned courts below on the basis of appreciation of documentary evidence produced on record of the respective parties have correctly concluded that revenue records demonstrates that it is the plaintiff who is in possession over the suit land and not the defendant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings returned by both the learned courts below to this effect are a result of misreading of oral and documentary evidence on record. As far as the factum of presumption of truth being attached to revenue records is concerned, both learned courts below have held and rightly so, that defendant has not placed on record any material that after the death of Tota Ram, Zindi Devi inherited his tenancy rights qua the suit land. On the other hand documents on record demonstrate that after the death of Tota Ram, father of the plaintiff was inducted by the owner of the suit land as a non occupancy tenant over the same. Both the learned counsel below have held and rightly so that there was no question of relinquishment or abandonment of tenancy rights as far as Tota Ram was concerned because after his death his rights of inheritance were not inherited by anyone. The owner of the land automatically gained the possession of the same and subsequently the ancestors of plaintiff was inducted over the suit land by the owner of the same as non occupancy tenant. In fact there is no evidence on record from which it could be inferred that it was the defendant/appellant who was in possession of the property having inherited the same either from Tota Ram or Zindi Devi. 19. In fact there is no evidence on record from which it could be inferred that it was the defendant/appellant who was in possession of the property having inherited the same either from Tota Ram or Zindi Devi. 19. One more fact which requires to be dealt with at this stage is that in the written statement no defence was taken by the defendant that initially he was inducted over the suit land as a non occupancy tenant and thereafter proprietary rights were conferred upon him by operation of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Therefore, also in my considered view in the absence of there being any foundation laid in this regard qua the said defence by the defendant in his written statement he otherwise was precluded from raising the issue which was being agitated by way of the above substantial questions of law. Be that as it may, even otherwise neither the defendant has been able to prove that he was inducted as a tenant over the suit land nor he has been able to prove that he perfected his title thereafter by confirmation of proprietary rights upon him in the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Both these substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Substantial question of law No.3. 20. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial court demonstrates that it went on to decide issue No.1, 3 and 4 together as they were interconnected. These three issues read as under:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the defendant to file the suit? OPD. 21. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial court demonstrates that all these issues have been individually dealt with by learned trial court while returning its findings on the issues so framed and it is not as if after clubbing the issues there is no findings recorded by learned trial court on the issues independently. OPD. 21. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial court demonstrates that all these issues have been individually dealt with by learned trial court while returning its findings on the issues so framed and it is not as if after clubbing the issues there is no findings recorded by learned trial court on the issues independently. Learned trial court on the basis of evidence on record, concluded that plaintiff had proved himself to be in possession over the suit land and on these bases it held him entitled to the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction after concluding that defendant was interfering in the said possession over the suit property. Learned trial court held that as plaintiff had proved himself to be in possession over the suit land, though he was not able to demonstrate that in what capacity he was in possession there of, therefore he was not only entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction but suit was maintainable as he had a cause of action against the defendant who was interfering the suit land. Learned trial court also held that though plaintiff could not be regarded as a tenant but because he was in possession of the suit land since long time he could not be ejected by anyone except the real owner of the suit land and that also by following due procedure of law. Therefore, in my considered view the judgment and decree passed by both learned courts below is not vitiated on the ground that each issue were not separately decided by learned trial court. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant reported in Om Prakash and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 2001 Himachal Pradesh 18, has no bearing on the facts of this case because in the above mentioned case it was held by this Court that the judgment which does not contains reasons or ground on the basis of which the Judge has come to the conclusion/decision for passing a judgment and decree on the point in issue or controversy, is vitiated. In the present case in my considered view it is not as if the learned courts below have not given reasons or grounds on the basis of which they have come to their respective conclusions while passing their respective judgments and decrees. Therefore also there is no merit in the present appeal. In the present case in my considered view it is not as if the learned courts below have not given reasons or grounds on the basis of which they have come to their respective conclusions while passing their respective judgments and decrees. Therefore also there is no merit in the present appeal. This substantial question of law is answered accordingly. In view of the findings returned above as there is no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed with costs. Pending miscellaneous application also stands disposed of.