JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants, claiming therein that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction being pronounced against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the plaintiffs before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, whereupon, it disconcurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the defendants/appellants herein are driven to institute the instant appeal here before. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff, Parma Nand, who was predecessor in interest of the respondents herein, filed a suit against the defendants/appellants herein for permanent prohibitory injunction and also for damage to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. It is averred that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.40 min, Khatauni No. 48 min, old khasra numbers 655 and 669, new khasra Nos. 677 and 683, kitas 2 measuring 4-11-19 bighas, situated in Muhal Nandi, Illaqua Tilli, Tehsil Chachioit, District Mandi, H.P. along with Parwati Devi defendant No.11, whereas, the contesting defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. It is further averred that on 1.7.1994, the defendants started unlawful interference in the suit land and when they were requested not to do so, they trespassed into the suit land on 3.7.1994 and damaged the maize crop sown in it. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement. It is averred that since the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, the suit is not maintainable. According to the defendants, previously the suit land along with other land was possessed by Kura Ram, who sold the suit land along with other land to Shri Ram Dass, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 8 for a consideration of Rs.17,200/- in the year 1969 and thereafter Ram Dass took possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreement for sale. It is further averred that the sale deed could not be registered as Kura Ram was demanding a sum of Rs.8,000/- more for executing the sale deed. It is further averred that the sale deed could not be registered as Kura Ram was demanding a sum of Rs.8,000/- more for executing the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed a suit qua the suit land against the defendants, which was dismissed and then the plaintiff agitated the same upto the Hon'ble High Court but the same was dismissed and as such this suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata. The defendants denied of having caused any damage to the crop sown by the plaintiff thereby causing him loss to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. The suit is also stated to have been barred under the provisions of Order 2, Rule, 2 of the CPC. They have also referred to some order of consolidation authorities and has alleged that the same is without jurisdiction and is under appeal. According to the defendants, previously Kura Ram was in possession of the suit land and thereafter they got its possession and as such, the suit deserves dismissal. 4. The plaintiff/respondents herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/appellants, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants are interfering by entering into the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.2000/- by way of damages, as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit on account of his act and conduct? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred as per provision of order 2, rule 2 CPC, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 8. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. OPD. 8. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, 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, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether splitting of claims and splitting of remedies is available under the provisions of Order, 2, Rule 2, CPC, moreover, in the present case, whether the plaintiffs/respondents having failed in getting injunction in respect of the part of the suit land could have agitated the matter afresh by splitting the claims in view of the Order 2, Rule 2, CPC? 2. Whether the former proceedings on the same cause of action results in defendants favour a second proceedings on the same cause of action is barred, moreso of the issue framed is specifically answered against the plaintiffs in earlier suit? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. One Kura Ram, a co-sharer alongwith the plaintiffs purportedly upon the suit land, alienated under an agreement to sell, his share in the purported undivided suit land he held with the plaintiff. Also he received the sale consideration of Rs.17,200/- besides he in sequel thereto handedover possession of his share in the purportedly undivided suit land, he held along with the plaintiff. The conclusive binding judgment and decrees comprised respectively in Ex. DE and in Ex.DG, judgments whereof validate the factum of one Kura Ram under an agreement to sell, after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.17,200/- from the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, his in part performance thereof delivering possession of the property comprised in khasra No. 660, 661 and 657 measuring 3-7-16 bighas, stood relied upon by the learned trial Court, to conclude that the extant suit khasra bearing numbers 677 and 683, also holding the apt connectivity with old khasra Nos. 660, 661 and 657, in respect whereof arose a previous litigation inter se one Parma Nand and the defendants, litigation whereof stood comprised in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction instituted by one Parma Nand, suit whereof stood concurrently dismissed, thereupon, it concluded that the instant suit in respect of the aforesaid analogous therewith new khasra numbers, being barred by the principle of resjudicata also by the principle engrafted in Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, arising from the factum, of, with the plaintiff previously not rearing pleas in respect of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction being pronounced in respect of the extant suit khasra numbers, alongwith his rearing a plea in respect of khasra numbers 660, 661 and 657, thereupon also his claim for injunction in respect of the extant suit khasra numbers being barred. The aforesaid pronouncements recorded by the learned trial Court, in Civil Suit No. 92/98(94) wherein on anvil of concurrent previous judgments and decrees comprised in Ex.DE and Ex.DG, pronouncements whereof are evidently in respect of khasra numbers 660, 661 and 657, it concluded that the pronouncements borne in the aforesaid exhibits also barring the institution of the instant suit by the plaintiff besides attracting thereon the principle of resjudicata, as also, the institution of the instant suit in respect of the extant suit khasra numbers attracting the bar of estoppel enjoined in Order 2, Rule, 2 of the CPC, is apparently meritless, emphatically when with a gross evident distinctivity upsurging inter se the suit khasra numbers borne in Ex.DE and Ex.DG vis-a-vis the extant suit khasra numbers, thereupon, any attraction on anvils thereof, the principle of resjudicata in respect of the extant suit is rendered, grossly improper besides warrants its being discountenanced. 9. Be that as it may, the principle enshrined in Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, though enjoined the plaintiff, to, at the stage contemporaneous of his instituting the previous suit, in respect of khasra numbers 660, 661 and 657 also, rear a claim in respect of the extant suit khasra numbers also his omission in regard aforesaid, attracting vis-a-vis the extant suit, the aforesaid interdictory statutory principles engrafted in Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC. Nonetheless, the attraction vis-a-vis the extant suit the principle of estoppel, engrafted in Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, is grossly inappropriate, given no evidence standing adduced by the defendants, in display of the causes of action in respect of extant suit khasra number arising contemporaneously along with the causes of action which accrued at the time of institution of the previous suit. Contrarily, when the plaintiff has cogently proven that the apposite causes of action HENCE driving him to institute the extant suit for permanent prohibitory injunction arose in contemporaneity, thereof, thereupon, with the accrual of causes of action in respect of the extant suit khasra numbers being proven, to arise in contemporaneity of its institution also, renders the attraction of the principle of estoppel engrafted in Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC to be unattractable vis-a-vis the instant suit. Provisions of Order 2 of the CPC read as under:- “2. Suit to include the whole claim.- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. (2) Relinquishment of part of claim—Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs—A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.” 10. Dehors the aforesaid answers being meted by this Court upon the afore extracted substantial question of law whereon the instant appeal stood admitted by this Court, renders further reliance by the learned trial Court upon the pronouncements respectively borne in Ex. DE and Ex. DG to be wholly inapt, especially when it on anvil thereof makes an emphatic aplomb conclusion qua thereupon the possession of the defendants upon the suit land also standing ipso facto proven. Uncontrovertedly, the conclusion borne in pronouncements respectively occurring in Ex.DE and in Ex. DE and Ex. DG to be wholly inapt, especially when it on anvil thereof makes an emphatic aplomb conclusion qua thereupon the possession of the defendants upon the suit land also standing ipso facto proven. Uncontrovertedly, the conclusion borne in pronouncements respectively occurring in Ex.DE and in Ex. DG, of one Ram Dass, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants under an agreement to sell, purchasing the share of one Kura Ram in the undivided land, the latter held along with the plaintiff also Kura Ram in part performance thereof, delivering possession of khasra numbers 660, 661 and 657 vis-a-vis one Ram Dass also does not facilitate any inference that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and thereafter on his demise, the defendants also taking possession of the extant suit khasra numbers. Contrarily, the revelations borne in Ex.PA, exhibit whereof is a jamabandi apposite tot he extant suit khasra numbers appertaining to the year 1993-94, making a disclosure of the extant suit khasra numbers standing recorded in possession of the plaintiff and one Parwati Devi. Consequently, when the aforesaid reflections borne in Ex.PA enjoy a presumption of truth, given the preparation thereof occurring during the course of consolidation proceedings which were underway in the Halqua concerned, whereat, the suit khasra numbers are located, besides hence when the aforesaid reflections borne in Ex.PA, are to be concluded to stand preceded by apposite valid orders recorded by the authorities concerned, whereas, only in absence thereof the reflections borne in Ex. PA may be concluded to be nonest , sequel whereof, is that the presumption of truth enjoyed by entries borne in EX. PA, entries whereof, are all reflective of the extant suit kahsra numbers being possessed by the plaintiffs and by one Parwati, hence, warrant imputation of conclusivity thereto. Conclusivity whereof marshals additional strength from the factum of one of the defendants' witness, namely, Dumnu in his cross-examination acquiescing to the factum of one Parma Nand sowing his maize crop on the extant suit land. In sequel, with the plaintiffs proving theirs holding possession of the extant suit khasra numbers, hence, warranted the learned trial Court to pronounce a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, decree whereof it inaptly failed to render. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. 12. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003 on 14.01.2005 is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.