Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Predecessor of the respondents in present appeal, late Shri Bakshi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) had filed a suit against appellants (hereinafter referred to as defendants) seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them, their agents, servants and assignees from raising construction in suit land, jointly owned and possessed by plaintiff and defendants along with other co-sharers, on the ground that defendants were bent upon to cover best portion of suit land forcibly by raising construction over it without consent of plaintiff and without getting the suit land partitioned. Alternatively, in case of raising construction by defendants over suit land, mandatory injunction, directing defendants to restore the suit land into its original condition by demolishing such construction, was also sought for. 2. Suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, in appeal, learned District Judge decreed the suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining defendants personally or through their family members, assignees, agents and servants from raising construction or changing nature of suit land in any manner till its partition in accordance with law. 3. In present appeal, defendants have assailed judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge in favour of plaintiff which has been admitted on following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether respondents/plaintiffs having themselves admitted that they have raised construction of their house over suit land, therefore, they are estopped by their own act and conduct to claim decree of injunction against present appellants? 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 5. As per plaint, parties have constructed houses over some portion of suit land and rest of land is vacant, which is a very valuable piece of land for extension of Abadi and defendants, being strong headed person, are bent upon covering best portion of the suit land forcibly and have started digging the suit land and collecting construction material for raising construction over suit land forcibly without having any right to do so. It is also pleaded in plaint that in case, defendants succeed in raising forcible construction over suit land, then plaintiff is entitled for relief for mandatory injunction, as prayed for. 6. It is also pleaded in plaint that in case, defendants succeed in raising forcible construction over suit land, then plaintiff is entitled for relief for mandatory injunction, as prayed for. 6. In written statement, defendants have contested the claim of plaintiff stating therein that possession of parties over suit land is separate on the spot on the basis of arrangement made since the time of their ancestors and they are not doing anything over suit land and plaintiffs’ house consisting of two room is already on said land and it is plaintiff, who himself, is threatening to raise construction of one room over said land and defendants have constructed boundary wall over the suit land about four years back to which no objection was raised at that time. It is further stated that house of defendants is situated in adjoining Khasra numbers and only Sehan (courtyard) of defendants falls over the suit land. 7. In replication, it was stated that suit land is joint between the parties and there is no separate possession of parties on the spot and defendants want to cover best portion of suit land by raising construction over it and house of defendants is also over the suit land. 8. During the pendency of suit, Local Commissioner, appointed under Order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, after visiting the spot, had submitted his report, along with photographs taken and statements recorded by him on the spot, stating therein that defendants had collected construction material i.e. two heaps of stones and one heap of bazari in front of their house, quantum of which was found about five trucks loads, but no new construction was found on the spot. As per statement recorded by him, wife of defendant No. 1 Piar Chand stated that construction material was collected by them for flooring of their house. 9. Be that as it may, the question to be decided herein this appeal is whether after constructing house upon land jointly owned and possessed by parties, one can seek injunction against others restraining them from raising construction over the same land. 10. It is admitted fact that plaintiff(s) and defendants are co-sharers in suit land. In plaint, plaintiff admitted construction of houses of parties on suit land whereas defendants admitted house of plaintiff in suit land but denied location of their house on the suit land. 10. It is admitted fact that plaintiff(s) and defendants are co-sharers in suit land. In plaint, plaintiff admitted construction of houses of parties on suit land whereas defendants admitted house of plaintiff in suit land but denied location of their house on the suit land. There is no evidence on record to establish the fact that house of defendants is also on the suit land except oral statement of plaintiff as PW1. 11. Respective claim set by parties in pleadings, is to be proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence. In absence of evidence in support of disputed pleadings, such pleadings cannot be considered for deciding the case. Similarly, the evidence led beyond pleadings can also not be considered. 12. It is settled law that pleadings in absence of proof cannot be made basis for deciding an issue in favour of a party. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others (2014)10 SCC 473 has held as under:- “1. Construction by plaintiff, destruction by defendant. Construction by pleadings, proof by evidence, proof only by relevant and admissible evidence. Genuineness, veracity or reliability of the evidence is seen by the Court only after the stage of relevancy and admissibility. These are some of the first principles of evidence. What is the nature and manner of admission of electronic records is one of the principal issues arising for consideration in this appeal.” 13. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore vs. S.Mani and others (2005)5 SCC 100 , the Apex Court has held as under:- “19. Pleadings are no substitute for proof. No workman, thus, took an oath to state that they had worked for 240 days. No document in support of the said plea was produced. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the plea raised by the respondents herein that they had worked continuously for 240 days was deemed to have been admitted by applying the doctrine of non-traverse. In any event the contention of the respondents having been denied and disputed, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to add new evidence. In any event the contention of the respondents having been denied and disputed, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to add new evidence. The contents raised in the letters of the union dated 30.5.1988 and 11.4.1990 containing statements to the effect that the workmen had been working continuously for 240 days might not have been replied to, but the same is of no effect as by reason thereof, the allegations made therein cannot be said to have been proved, particularly in view of the fact that the contents thereof were not proved by any witness. Only by reason of non-response to such letters, the contents thereof would not stand admitted. The Evidence Act does not say so.” 14. It is also settled principle of law that evidence led by parties must be in consonance with their pleadings and evidence led contrary to pleadings cannot be considered. Applying rule of divergence between pleading and evidence, any evidence contrary to pleading is to be ignored. No evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. (See Siddik Mahomed Shah vs. Mt. Saran and others, AIR 1930 Privy Council 57 (1)). Considering this issue, the Apex Court in Janak Dulari Devi and another vs. Kapildeo Rai and another (2011)6 SCC 555 has held as under:- “9. …….When what is pleaded is not proved, or what is stated in the evidence is contrary to the pleadings, the dictum that no amount of evidence, contrary to the pleadings, howsoever cogent, can be relied on, would apply…….” 15. Pleading of plaintiff is that houses of parties are on suit land and defendants are bent upon to raise construction to cover the best portion of suit land without getting it partitioned and without consent of plaintiff. Plaintiff as PW1 is only witness examined in support of his claim. As per his deposition in court, share of defendants in suit land is 19 marlas and defendants were going to raise construction in front of door of his house on land more than their share in the suit land. He has conspicuously silent about raising of construction by defendants on the best portion of land. He has not led any oral or documentary evidence in support of his pleadings to establish that the suit land upon which defendants have proposed construction is the best portion of suit land. He has conspicuously silent about raising of construction by defendants on the best portion of land. He has not led any oral or documentary evidence in support of his pleadings to establish that the suit land upon which defendants have proposed construction is the best portion of suit land. Plaintiff also has not placed on record any evidence establishing that defendants are already in possession of 19 marlas and proposed construction in said land was beyond their share i.e. 19 marlas. 16. Defendants have examined two witnesses. Defendant No. 1 appeared as DW1 and deposed that suit land was partitioned in Khangi proceedings and partied are in their respective possession, according to said partition and plaintiff has constructed his house on suit land consisting of two rooms along with varamdah and is intending to construct another room, whereas land in question is courtyard of defendants and defendants have raised boundary wall on spot and constructed toilet inside the boundary wall about 10-11 years ago and building material collected by him, has been stacked for repair of another house. In cross examination, no where it has been suggested to him that portion of suit land, intended by defendants to be used for construction, is the best or valuable portion of suit land. It is suggested to defendant No.1 that he has raised construction covering land more than his share, which is denied by him. 17. In present case, in plaint plaintiff has not pleaded that defendants are raising construction in suit land beyond the limits of their share. Rather, only objection against construction is that defendants are bent upon covering best portion of suit land without consent or partition. Whereas, in his deposition in the Court, he has not uttered even a single word about different nature and/or value of the suit land much less about the best portion of suit land being covered by defendants. He introduces a new ground, but never pleaded, claiming that defendants are intending to raise construction in suit land covering area beyond their entitlement. There is no evidence on record in support of claim set in plaint and there are no pleadings with regard to allegations levelled in statement of plaintiff as PW1. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to identify, quantify and qualify the respective area in possession of parties and also the area intended to be used by defendants for further construction. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to identify, quantify and qualify the respective area in possession of parties and also the area intended to be used by defendants for further construction. 18. It is settled law that in a land owned and possessed jointly by co-sharers, none of co-sharer can raise construction over the same to the deterimental to right of others without mutual consent or without having joint land partitioned. But in case like present one, where parties have already constructed houses upon joint land, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to prove only that suit land is owned and possessed jointly by parties and proposed construction is without consent or without partition of suit land. Once some construction is raised on joint land, the cosharer, who has already constructed house upon the said land, has to place on record something more establishing that how the construction of another co-sharer is adversely affecting his valuable legal right over suit land. 19. In present case, plaintiff has already raised construction over suit land and is seeking injunction against defendants alleging that defendants are going to utilise/cover the best portion of suit land, but he has not produced any evidence on record for determining the value of suit land already utilized by him or defendants or the land upon which defendants are allegdly bent upon to raise construction. Plaintiff has also not led any evidence to establish the area utilized for construction of his house and also that of defendants. 20. Plaintiff claims that houses of parties are situated on suit land but defendants disputes the location of their house by stating that their house is situated in another Khasra number. Plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove his claim that house of defendants is also on the suit land nor to prove that defendants are in possession of 19 marlas of land and proposed construction upon the suit land is beyond their entitlement in suit land. 21. Plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove his claim that house of defendants is also on the suit land nor to prove that defendants are in possession of 19 marlas of land and proposed construction upon the suit land is beyond their entitlement in suit land. 21. In cases, where parties have already raised construction on the land owned and possessed jointly by them, the co-sharer seeking injunction against other co-sharer for restraining him from raising any construction thereupon, has also to plead and prove something more than that suit land is in joint ownership and possession and any co-sharer is raising construction upon the same without partition or without consent, establishing like explaining facts and circumstances in which previous construction was permitted to be raised without partition and also how proposed construction is affecting his legal rights or enjoyment of the suit land. 22. I also find support to my view from judgment relied upon by defendants, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case reported in Ashok Kapoor vs. Murtu Devi (2016)1 Shim.L.C.207 wherein, after considering numerous judgments of various High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is observed as under:- “46. On consideration of the various judicial pronouncements and on the basis of the dominant view taken in these decisions on the rights and liabilities of the co-sharers and their rights to raise construction to the exclusion of others, the following principles can conveniently be laid down:- (i) a co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in the common property absolutely and simply because he is a co-owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of possession. (ii) Mere making of construction or improvement of, in, the common property does not amount to ouster. (iii) If by the act of the co-owner in possession the value or utility of the property is diminished, then a co-owner out of possession can certainly seek an injunction to prevent the diminution of the value and utility of the property. (iv) If the acts of the co-owner in possession are detrimental to the interest of other co-owners, a co-owner out of possession can seek an injunction to prevent such act which is detrimental to his interest. (iv) If the acts of the co-owner in possession are detrimental to the interest of other co-owners, a co-owner out of possession can seek an injunction to prevent such act which is detrimental to his interest. (v) before an injunction is issued, the plaintiff has to establish that he would sustain, by the act he complains of some injury which materially would affect his position or his enjoyment or an accustomed user of the joint property would be inconvenienced or interfered with. (vi) the question as to what relief should be granted is left to the discretion of the Court in the attending circumstances on the balance of convenience and in exercise of its discretion the Court will be guided by consideration of justice, equity and good conscience.” 23. Plaintiff has also failed to lead evidence to prove that alleged proposed construction of defendants will diminish the value or utility of property or the same is deterimental to the interest of other co-owners including plaintiff. What is claimed in plaint is not substantiated by leading evidence and what is led in evidence has not been pleaded in plaint. 24. Plaintiff has though pleaded that defendants are bent upon raising construction without partition, but has chosen to remain conspicuously silent about pendency of partition proceedings preferred by him or any other co-sharers. Pendency of partition proceedings can also be a reason to restrain a cosharer from raising construction and enjoying the nature of the land in given facts and circumstances of the case. But in present case, it is also not the case of plaintiff. In my opinion, it is another point that without preferring or intending to prefer partition proceedings, petitioner may not be entitled to perpetual injunction as it is also not case of plaintiff that defendants are hampering partition proceedings preferred by him or someone else. There is no pleading or evidence with respect to partition proceedings on record. 25. In my opinion, it is another point that without preferring or intending to prefer partition proceedings, petitioner may not be entitled to perpetual injunction as it is also not case of plaintiff that defendants are hampering partition proceedings preferred by him or someone else. There is no pleading or evidence with respect to partition proceedings on record. 25. Learned District Judge has decreed the suit by discussing the evidence of defendants by stating that defendants have failed to establish their case and referring report of Local Commissioner and also statement of DW1 Piar Chand, about collection of construction material by defendants in their courtyard, has considered the failure to mention the fact of collection of material in written statement as a circumstance against the defendants and has held collection of construction material by defendants in suit land sufficient to pass impugned decree against them. Learned District Judge has ignored the fundamental principle of law that facts are to be proved by party who asserts and has also failed to consider that plaintiff has already raised construction upon the suit land and now opposing construction of defendants on the ground that best portion of land will be utilized by defendants but has not led any evidence in support of his claim identifying the best portion of land and to prove his claim that house of defendants is also situated in the suit land. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 26. Onus to prove its claim is upon plaintiff, who has failed to discharge his onus and in such a situation suit cannot be decreed. Learned District Judge has committed mistake by passing a decree in favour of plaintiff restraining defendants from raising constrcution over suit land only on the ground that defendants have collected material upon suit land and suit land is in joint ownership and possession of parties by ignoring the fact that plaintiff has already constructed house thereupon but has not established on record prejudice caused to him by proposed construction of defendants. 27. 27. As discussed above, in case where one co-sharer himself has raised construction over the suit land, he will not have right to seek injunction unless he proves that construction by another co-sharer upon the land is in excess to share and/or prejudice or deterimental to legal rights of others and/or prejudice to co-sharers’ right of lawful enjoyment of the suit land or will diminish the value or utility of property in question having adverse affect on right of co-sharer(s). 28. In present case plaintiff, though co-owner but has failed to establish adverse affect upon his rights in the suit land on raising construction by defendants, which was necessary for the reason that plaintiff himself has already raised construction over the suit land.Therefore, impugned judgment and decree warrants interference. 29. In view of above discussion, appeal is allowed and judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007 passed by learned District Judge Hamirpur, in civil appeal No. 96 of 2005 titled as Bakshi Ram vs. Piar Chand is set aside and civil suit No. 232 of 1998 filed by plaintiff is dismissed. Record of learned Courts below be sent back forthwith. Appeal stands allowed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of in above terms.