JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment dated 4.6.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 106-S/13 of 2002, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Court No.3, Shimla, in Case No. 485/1 of 96/95, whereby suit for permanent prohibitory injunction having been filed by appellant/plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the (appellant herein after referred to as the plaintiff) filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents (defendants for the sake of brevity), averring therein that he is co-owner in possession of the land comprising khasra No. 51, Khata Khatauni No. 1 min/1 min, measuring four bighas and fifteen biswas (in short “the suit land”) situated in village Neri, Tehsil & District Shimla, H.P. Plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that his father namely Bhagat Ram expired on 15.2.1995 and thereafter, he and other LRs of his father, succeeded to his estate, however, no formal mutation of inheritance was attested by the revenue authorities in their name. As per the plaintiff, he as well as other co-sharers have their ancestral house situated over the suit land and are residing alongwith their family members in the same. As per the plaintiff, courtyard is situated just in front of their said ancestral house, whereupon defendants are trying to raise construction and also thereby trying to change nature of the suit land. Plaintiff averred before the court below that in case, defendants succeed in raising structure on the aforesaid courtyard of the ancestral house, light, air and sunshine of the house, shall be adversely affected, as the premises, which is in possession of the plaintiff in the ancestral house, shall become dark, dingy and inhabitable. Plaintiff further alleged that adjacent to cow shed in the ground storey of the ancestral house, there is a place for keeping cattle and in case, defendants succeed in raising construction of the court yard of the ancestral house, it will obstruct the passage specifically left for the cattle on the spot. As per the plaintiff, he and other co-sharers are keeping their cattle on the spot, from time immemorial. As per the plaintiff, he and other co-sharers are keeping their cattle on the spot, from time immemorial. Lastly, plaintiff averred in the plaint that the suit land is joint between the plaintiff, defendants and other co-sharers and defendants have no right whatsoever, to change the nature of the suit land and raise construction that too on the best portion of it till its regular partition among all the co-sharers. With the aforesaid pleadings, plaintiff sought decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to the effect that they be restrained from raising any construction over the suit land till the regular partition of the same. 3. Defendants specifically pleaded before the Court below that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands as he has suppressed the material information with regard to the partition of the suit land already effected inter-se the parties on 4.9.1983. On merits, defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff by stating that the plaintiff is not the co-owner in possession of the suit land with them because land stands partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendants vide family settlement dated 4.9.1983. As per the defendants, parties to the lis have been occupying their respective shares and they are in possession of it and they have divided their respective shares without any interruption of the other parties and as such, plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit land. The defendants further alleged that family partition was executed in the presence of other co-sharers and with their respective consents and instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff solely with a view to harass other co-sharers. While admitting that there is ancestral house situated over the suit land, defendants claimed that by virtue of aforesaid family partition, ancestral house alongwith vacant land in front of the house as well as courtyard, was granted to them in the family settlement and as such, they have every right, title or interest, to raise construction over it. Defendants specifically denied that they are trying to change the nature of the suit land by raising construction and it will adversely affect light and air of ancestral house. The defendants further stated in the written statement that the aforesaid family settlement was reflected in the revenue record and in terms of same, all the co-sharers are in physical possession of the suit land. The defendants further stated in the written statement that the aforesaid family settlement was reflected in the revenue record and in terms of same, all the co-sharers are in physical possession of the suit land. The defendants also denied that they are trying to grab the best portion of the suit land. 4. Plaintiff by way of replication refuted all claims of the defendants and reasserted and reaffirmed the averments contained in the plaint. Learned trial court on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties framed following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 6. Relief.” Subsequently, vide judgment dated 31.10.2002, learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, H.P, dismissed the aforesaid suit having been filed by the plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, before the learned District Judge, Shimla. However, fact remains that learned District Judge, dismissed the appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff, as a result of which, judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002, passed by the learned trial Court, came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff (appellant) approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing and setting-aside of the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by the learned courts below. 6. This Court vide order dated 7.6.2006, admitted the instant appeal on following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the threatened construction will affect the passage of cattle to the ancestral house of the plaintiff and also light, air and sunshine to the said ancestral house?” 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records. 8. Whether the threatened construction will affect the passage of cattle to the ancestral house of the plaintiff and also light, air and sunshine to the said ancestral house?” 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records. 8. While exploring answer to the substantial question of law, this Court had an occasion to peruse pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof, certainly does not persuade this Court to agree with the contentions/submissions having been made by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are result of misreading, misinterpretation and mis-construction of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Rather, this Court after having carefully perused impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, vis-à-vis, evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, has no hesitation to conclude that the courts below, have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope, whatsoever, of interference by this court, especially, in view of the concurrent finding of fact as well as law, recorded by the courts below. Otherwise also, this Court was unable to lay its hand to the evidence, if any, led on record by the plaintiff, suggestive of the fact that in the event of construction, if any, carried out by the defendants on the suit land, passage of cattle and light, air and sunshine to the said ancestral house, would be materially affected. 9. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, representing the plaintiff, while referring to the impugned judgments passed by the courts below vehemently argued that the courts below have not at all discussed in any manner the evidence and pleadings brought on record of the case by the plaintiff with regard to the fact that light, air and sun-shine to the ancestral house shall be adversely affected and also with regard to the effect that there shall be no other place for other co-sharers for tethering their cattle, in case defendants succeed in raising the construction in the present manner. 10. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, contended that this court has very limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence in the instant proceedings, especially in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. 10. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, contended that this court has very limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence in the instant proceedings, especially in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. In this regard, to substantiate his aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 . 11. It clearly emerges from the pleadings that there is no dispute that the parties to the lis were joint owner in possession of the suit land. It also emerges from Ext.PW1/A i.e. Jamabandi for the year, 1991-92 that the suit land is jointly recorded in the names of parties to the lis. In the instant case, defendants specifically denied the claim of the plaintiff with regard to their joint ownership qua the suit land by specifically taking plea of private family partition having taken place between them in the year, 1983. 12. Though, PW1 Bhupinder Singh Thakur, denied the factum of family partition, if any, allegedly took place in the year, 1983 but PW2 Shri Devi Singh, who happened to be uncle of PW1, specifically admitted the factum with regard to the family partition arrived inter-se the parties. It has come in his statement that the suit land after partition came in possession of the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants. He also admitted that the suit land of village Neri is cultivated by the defendants. He also admitted that the parties are cultivating the land as per family arrangement. PW2, who also happened to be one of the co-sharers of the suit land, also stated that after the partition, he built his house 9-10 years ago and plaintiff also built his own house. Apart from above, it also emerge from the statement of PW1 that he has also raised construction over the suit land, which is recorded in joint ownership and possession of the parties. 13. PW3, Amar Singh, who is another co-sharer in suit land though, stated that suit land was never partitioned but it has specifically come in his crossexamination that he has constructed a separate house adjoining to the suit land and plaintiff has also built a separate house. 13. PW3, Amar Singh, who is another co-sharer in suit land though, stated that suit land was never partitioned but it has specifically come in his crossexamination that he has constructed a separate house adjoining to the suit land and plaintiff has also built a separate house. On the other hand, DW-1 Kanwar Singh re-iterated his stand taken in the written statement that land in question was partitioned by way of private partition in the year, 1983 i.e. Mark-A dated 4.9.1983, whereby the suit land was divided amongst all the three co-owners, who have built their separate houses on the suit land. 14. Similarly, DW2 Deep Ram Sharma, further corroborated the version put forth by DW1 with regard to private partition of the suit land in the year, 1983. He deposed before the court below that suit land was partitioned by way of family partition in the year, 1983 and in such partition, suit land fell to the share of the defendants. He also stated that after the aforesaid partition, all the parties built their separate houses. It has also come in his statement that pursuant to partition Ext.DW1/A, memo was prepared on which, he identified his as well as signatures of another witness Durga Dass. 15. This Court after having carefully perused the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record, sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the court below that defendants by way of cogent, definite and satisfactory evidence, successfully established on record the factum with regard to private partition between the parties in the year, 1983. DW-1 categorically admitted that he has raised construction over the suit land. Similarly, both the PWs (PWs 2 & 3) also admitted that they have built separate houses adjoining to the suit land. It has also come in their statements that the plaintiff has also built separate house over the suit land, which is mustarika. It clearly emerges from the family partition dated 4.9.1983 (Ext.DW1/A) that the suit land had come to the share of the defendants. It has also come in their statements that the plaintiff has also built separate house over the suit land, which is mustarika. It clearly emerges from the family partition dated 4.9.1983 (Ext.DW1/A) that the suit land had come to the share of the defendants. While shifting the evidence adduced on record, this Court could also lay its hand to the judgment passed by the learned trial Court i.e. Mark-B in civil Suit No. 93/I of 1995 having been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the defendants in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Shimla, H.P., whereby prayer for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants permanently from raising any construction over the suit land till regular partition between the co-sharers was made. In the suit referred above, specific issue No. 2 “Whether there is family partition between the parties and predecessor of plaintiff? OPP” came to be framed. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 20.8.1999, dismissed the suit (supra) and decided aforesaid issue with regard to the family partition against the appellant-plaintiff. Plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment and decree came to be upheld, whereby admittedly, issue with regard to the family partition effected interse the parties, in the year, 1983 was decided against the plaintiff. It emerge from the record of learned first appellate Court that during the pendency of the appeal, dependants moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 praying therein for taking on record the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Shimla, dated 1.1.2003 in CS No. 61-S/13 of 99. Aforesaid application was contested by the appellant by way of filing reply to the same, but it appear/ emerge from the record that learned first appellate Court taking note of the evidence adduced on record by defendants qua the factum of private family partition effected inter-se the parties, deemed it fit not to take into consideration the additional evidence proposed to be led on record by the defendants. Though, this Court after having carefully perused the evidence originally adduced on record by the respective parties, agrees with the finding returned by the learned first appellate Court that there is no need to take additional evidence to prove the factum of private family partition effected inter-se the parties but there was no harm in taking judgment of learned District Judge, Shimla, in Civil Appeal No. 61-s/13 of 2000-99 on record in the appeal having been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff, wherein admittedly plea of family partition having been effected inter-se the parties raised on behalf of defendants was accepted by the court below. Since factum with regard to the family partition having been effected inter-se the parties in the year, 1983 stands duly proved in CS 93-1/1995 admittedly having been filed by the plaintiff, plaintiff cannot be allowed at this stage to state that family partition allegedly effect inter-se the parties in the year, 1983, is not valid. Though, this Court is in agreement with the argument having been made by Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that possession of one co-sharer is possession of all till the land is partitioned inter-se them in accordance with law but since it stands duly proved on record that all the co-sharers including plaintiff and defendants are in exclusive possession of the separate parcels of the land in terms of family arrangement, there is no illegality and infirmity in the finding recorded by the court below that defendants have only right to raise construction over the suit land, which admittedly fell in their share in the family partition. 16. Leaving everything aside, this Court was unable to find something specific in the statements of plaintiff’s witnesses from where, it could be inferred that in the event of construction by the defendants on the suit land, passage of cattle to the ancestral house of the plaintiff and also light, air and sunshine to the said ancestral house, shall be adversely affected, rather this Court after having carefully perused the pleadings as well as evidence, sees substantial force in the argument of Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, representing the defendants that it stands duly proved on record that prior to family partition, plaintiff as well as defendants were residing together in their ancestral house but thereafter all of them have raised separate construction over the land, which fell in their share. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, representing the defendants that it stands duly proved on record that prior to family partition, plaintiff as well as defendants were residing together in their ancestral house but thereafter all of them have raised separate construction over the land, which fell in their share. While referring to the statement of plaintiff, Mr. Gupta, contended that house constructed by the defendants is at a distance of one furlang from the ancestral house. Otherwise also, apart from above, plaintiff has not been able to prove on record that at present, he as well as other co-sharers reside in the ancestral house which admittedly at one point of time, was owned and possessed jointly by their ancestor and as such, substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. This Court is fully satisfied that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma’s case supra, wherein the Court has held as under:- “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” 18. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” 18. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees, passed by the courts below, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record, and as such, same are upheld. Present appeal fails and dismissed accordingly.