JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Shimla H.P., whereby he affirmed the rendition of the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Theog, Himachal Pradesh. The defendants standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below, hence through the instant appeal constituted before this Court, concert to beget reversal of the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision in the instant appeal are that the plaintiff seeks the permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the best part of the suit land comprised in Khata No 18, Khatauni No. 30, Kitas 7, measuring 95 bighas and 6 biswas, situated in chak Kachi, pergana Charati, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the one of the co-owners of the suit land and other co-sharers Budhi Ram and Marchi had sold their shares to the defendants and defendants have become the co-sharers with the plaintiff. The plaintiff prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering with the land in his possession. Hence, the present suit. 3. The suit was contested by defendants. They filed written statement admitting that the plaintiff is the co- sharer. It was asserted that defendant No.2 has purchased the share of Bhudi Ram and Marchi. The possession was also delivered to the defendants on the spot and defendants developed the land. The plaintiff has not developed any land, hence, they prayed that this suit be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the defendants are in separate possession of a portion of the suit land, as alleged? OPD. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Relief. 5. On appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff besides the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. 6. Now the defendants/appellants herein have instituted before this Court the instant Regular Second Appeal wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 6. Now the defendants/appellants herein have instituted before this Court the instant Regular Second Appeal wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 21.3.2006, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court erred in law in granting the relief of injunction against the appellants, who are admittedly co-sharers?” Substantial question of law. 7. Though in Ext.P-1, exhibit whereof comprises the Jamabandi with respect to the suit property, a communication occurs that the parties at contest hold the suit property as co-owners. Consequently, when the aforesaid reflections occurring in Ext.P-1 enjoy a presumption of truth besides when no cogent evidence is adduced for displacing the presumption of truth enjoyed by the apposite reflections borne in Ext.P-1,in sequel, the reflections occurring in Ext.P-1 qua the parties at contest holding co-ownership with respect to the suit property, hence acquire conclusivity. However, the effect of conclusivity being imputed to the aforesaid fact, would not per se entitle the defendants appellants, to beget reversal of the concurrent decrees recorded upon them whereby they stand restrained from interfering with the exclusive physical possession of the plaintiff, upon the suit land borne in the suit Khasra numbers. Moreover, even though the principle of joint tenancy or the principle of co-ownership is imbued with the salient tenet qua all the recorded co-owners holding unity of title besides community of possession with respect to every inch of the undivided suit property also when on the aforesaid principle being carried forward, it would beget a natural corollary that any exclusive possession by any co-owner of any part of the joint property being construable to be his holding possession thereof for other co-owners as well besides hence any exclusivity of possession of any co-owner of the undivided suit property “not” leveraging in him any entitlement to claim a decree for injuncting other co-owners from interfering in his exclusive possession upon the whole or a part of the undivided suit property. Nonetheless, the aforesaid principle of law, is however not to be rigidly applied rather it holds some exceptions, especially when a part or whole of the suit property is evidently exclusively physically possessed by a co-owner whereas other co-owners evidently do not hold physical possession of any part of the undivided suit property. Furthermore in case evidence emerges that when rights of co-ownership stand acquired in the undivided suit property ‘under’ a registered deed of conveyance executed by hitherto co-owners upon the apposite vendees/co-owners, it being imperatively established by an alienee/co-owner that the relevant hitherto vendors/co-owners in the undivided suit property evidently “holding” at the time of execution of the relevant deed of conveyance, “exclusive physical” possession of a part of the undivided property, in respect whereof he/they induct his alienee as co-owner therein also evidence is enjoined to emerge in portrayal of the hitherto co-owners/vendors, at the time contemporaneous to the execution of the apposite deed of conveyance “holding” exclusive physical possession of a part of the suit property. In case there is want of evidence with respect to, an alienee/co-owner never holding physical possession of the suit property nor when evidence is wanting with respect to the ailnee/co-owner being put into physical possession of any part of the suit property “whereas” evidence emerging with respect to a co-owner in the undivided suit property “holding” exclusivity of physical possession, thereupon the co-owner holding exclusive physical possession of the undivided suit property “does” have a right, to, till occurrence of dismemberment of the joint estate by metes and bounds hence injunct a recorded co-owner not evidently holding physical possession thereof, against his invading upon his exclusive settled physical possession over a part of or the entire undivided suit property. In determining whether the aforesaid evidence exists or does not exist on record for hence the Court decreeing or non suiting the plaintiff, the fact of an admission occurring in the testification of defendant Roop Singh, that his vendor Bhudhi Ram and Marchi are residing at a location distant from whereat the suit land is located, admission whereof is in consonance with the testification of the plaintiff witnesses besides when PW-2 has testified qua in 1995-96 his purchasing trees from the plaintiff, testification whereof remains uneroded of its sanctity, hence begets an inference that the aliennors/co-owners of the defendants/appellants herein vis-à-vis the suit property, never holding physical possession of any part thereof nor hence “theirs” at the time contemporaneous to theirs executing a deed of conveyance with the defendants appellants with respect to their share in the suit property “handing” over its physical possession to the defendants/appellants “moreso” when no specific recital in respect thereto is shown to occur in the relevant deed of conveyance especially when it remains unadduced into the evidence. In aftermath the long standing exclusive settled physical possession of the plaintiff upon the undivided suit property especially when thereon they have made immense developments also improvements, is to be revered. Therefore, in the face of the aforesaid exceptional fact, this Court is constrained to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to protect his physical possession with respect to the undivided suit property ‘till’ its dismemberment by metes and bounds occurs, by his seeking a decree of injunction being pronounced upon the defendants appellants qua theirs not interfering with his physical possession upon the suit land. Consequently, the concurrent decrees of both the Courts below with respect to the suit land is upheld. Substantial question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff. CMP No. 2518 of 2016. 8. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the defendants instituted an application under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151, seeking therein the leave of the Court, to place on record, certain photographs alongwith copy of Aks Sajra, documents aforesaid are claimed to pertain to the suit property besides they seek leave of this Court to adduce into evidence the certificate issued by the Halka Patwari concerned. The documents as proposed to be adduced into evidence, would enjoin this Court, to grant leave to the defendants appellants, to adduce them into evidence “only” when they made a prima-facie display qua theirs holding physical possession of any part of the undivided suit Khasra numbers. In making a determination, whether the documents for whose adduction into the evidence, the leave of this Court is sought, by the defendants, are hence just and essential for returning findings in respect of the apposite issue pertaining to the defendants appellants holding physical possession of any part of the undivided suit property, enjoined upon the defendants to unveil therefrom qua theirs appertaining to the suit property besides theirs prima facie displaying qua the defendants’ appellants holding physical possession of a part of the undivided suit property “unless” the aforesaid bespeakings occur in the documents recited in the application, thereupon this Court would not be inclined to afford any leave to the defendants, to adduce them into evidence. However, in making the aforesaid discernment rather with the photographs, as proposed to be adduced into evidence, with the leave of this Court, not prima facie establishing the fact of land, whereupon the fruit trees are reflected to be growing hence appertaining to the suit khasra number nor also with the photographs prima facie revealing that the defendants’ holding actual physical possession with respect “to the land” whereon fruit trees are reflected in the photographs. In sequel, with prima facie the aforesaid communications not standing displayed in the photographs, it is befitting to conclude that the apposite leave for their adduction into evidence “not” warranting its standing afforded to the defendants, as their adduction into evidence is hence neither just nor essential, for pronouncing a decision with respect to their holding physical possession with respect to any part of the undivided suit khasra. Moreover, leave to adduce into evidence, Akas Sajra, document whereof though appertains to the suit land, is also declined, it being insufficient to pronounce a decision with respect to the defendants hence prima facie establishing the factum of theirs holding physical possession of any part of the suit property, whereupon hence with its adduction into evidence also being neither just nor essential for making a pronouncement upon the apposite issue with respect to the defendants holding actual physical possession upon any part of the undivided suit property, reinforces a conclusion qua the leave sought in respect to its being adduced into evidence, warranting its being declined. Moreover, the certificate issued by the Patwari of the Halqua concerned, with an echoing therein that the hitherto co-owners of the suit property, one Besaru holding possession of the suit property, also qua hers holding possession of fruit trees growing on the suit land, is totally insignificant, for settling findings on the apposite issue, especially when the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff displaces any iota of truth borne by the reflections made in the certificate issued by the Patwari of the Halqua concerned. Also when Besaru has alienated her share in the suit property vis-à-vis the defendants under an apposite deed of conveyance wherein there occurs no recital that she held physical possession of any part of the undivided Khasra number nor their occurring any recital therein that she at the time of its execution, hence parted with its physical possession vis-à-vis the defendants’ appellants. Consequently, non occurrence of an apposite recital in the relevant deed of conveyance estops the defendants appellants to claim that the hitherto co-owner in the undivided suit property, “at the time” when the deed of conveyance was executed by them vis-à-vis the defendants/appellants “had” handed over physical possession, of any part of the undivided suit property to them, rather it appears that the Patwari of the Halqua concerned, has merely for aiding the defendants to espouse a false case also for belittling the worth of the relevant oral evidence, in collusion with the defendants has issued the certificate, predominantly also with the defendants appellants not during the course of the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court nor before the Appellate Court, producing the certificate issued by the Patwari of the Halqua concerned, with a reflection therein of one Beshru holding possession of the orchard reared upon the undivided suit property, also lends impetus, to the inference that its preparation is a result of collusion inter se the defendants with the Patwari of the Halqua concerned. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. 9. For reasons aforesaid this Court concludes with aplomb that the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below standing sequelled by theirs appraising the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom it is obvious that the analysis of material on record by the learned Courts below not suffering from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather they have aptly appreciated the material available on record. I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the concurrently recorded judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are maintained and affirmed. Substantial question of law stands answered against the defendants. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.