JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit khasra number(s), was, hence decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful ownership and possession, from cutting trees and changing the nature of the suit land. IN alternative, relief of possession had also been prayed for. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was exclusive owner and in possession of the suit land. The defendants being forceful persons were inimical towards the plaintiff. The suit land had properly been demarcated and boundaries had been fixed at the spot. When the plaintiff had started raising construction, the defendants pelted stones at him and his labour. Cause of action accrued on 11.01.2008 when the defendants created hindrance in the construction work of the plaintiff. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants No.1 to 4 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, cause of action, valuation, jurisdiction and estoppel. On merits, the contents of the plaint were denied It was asserted that the plaintiff was not exclusive owner of the suit land. He had purchased the land from Lekh Ram son of Kirpa Ram. Lekh Ram had sought partition of the land measuring 7.1 bighas, comprised in Khasra No.177/1 and the partition order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade was set aside by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sadar, Bilaspur, on 10.03.1998, the suit land was in the joint possession of the parties and was not maintainable against the other co-owners. It was also asserted that revenue entries were wrong and illegal. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. He was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction, as he had not approached the court with clean hands. 4. Defendant No.5 filed separate written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, suppression of facts etc. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits and prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. He was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction, as he had not approached the court with clean hands. 4. Defendant No.5 filed separate written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, suppression of facts etc. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits and prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The plaintiff filed replication(s) to the written statement(s) of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. 6. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court hence decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendants/appellants herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. 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, on 5.10.2016, 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 the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction is not maintainable by a co-sharer who is not in physical possession of a parcel of land and the plaintiff could not have claimed injunction against the defendants in the present case especially when no claim for partition has been made? 2. Whether the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction is not maintainable by a co-sharer who is not in physical possession of a parcel of land and the plaintiff could not have claimed injunction against the defendants in the present case especially when no claim for partition has been made? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, in Civil Appeal No.98 of 1999 titled as Lekh Ram vs. Balia and others, decided on 8.9.2004, holding lekh Ram to be owner in possession of suit land and restraining Balia etc., from interfering in his possession in any manner, whatsoever, to which late Sh. Durga Ram i.e. husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 4 was not party would have any binding effect on Durga Ram and in sequel on his legal representatives i.e. defendants No.1 to 4? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 2: 9. The plaintiff, in, support of the trite factum, of his, holding exclusive possession of suit kahsra No. 215/177/48, carrying an area of two biswas, has, placed reliance, upon, the testification rendered by Shri Kanshi Ram (PW-2), Kanungo, wherein, the latter testified, (i) of Prem Singh (plaintiff) being owner in possession, of, the suit land, borne in Khasra No. 215/177/48. PW-3 Ramesh Chand, Patwari, in his testification, as, comprised in his examination-in-chief, has testified of Lekh Ram being owner in possession of the suit land, now bearing Khasra No.215/177/48, (ii) and, he has further testified, of mutation, on anvil, of sale of the aforesaid parcel of land, standing attested, vis-a-vis, the suit land, on 30.09.2006. The afore referred rendered testification, by PW-3, qua, the plaintiff holding possession, of, the suit khasra number, carrying an area, of, two biswas, is apparently rendered, on anvil, of the apt khasra girdawari prepared by him. Since, a presumption of truth, is enjoyed, by the apposite entries, carried in the khasra girdwari, appertaining to the suit land, and, when therein one Lekh Ram wherefromwhom, the plaintiff hence purchased, the suit land, in the year 2006, is, recorded to be owner in possession thereof, (iii) besides when in consonance therewith, the jamabandi, apposite to the suit land, and, as comprised in Ex. PA also carries therein hence akin therewith reflections, (iv) thereupon, the presumption of truth enjoyed, by the afore-referred reflections, carried, both in khasra girdawari appertaining to the suit land, and, in the jamabandi borne, in Ex.PA, rather acquire conclusivity. More so, when the aggrieved defendants, omitted, to adduce any cogent evidence, for dislodging the truth(s) thereof. 10. Furthermore, with Lekh Ram, wherefrom whom, the plaintiff had purchased the suit land, hence making its purchase from one Dugra Ram, and, in contemporaneity thereof, tatima borne in Ex.DW1/C was also prepared, in respect of the specific parcel of land, qua, wherewith a sale occurred inter se one Durga Ram, and, Lekh Ram, thereupon, the aforesaid tatima, also, corroborates the deposition of PW-3, in respect of the plaintiff, holding, possession of the suit land, (i) especially, and, reiteratedly when he acquired title thereof, from, one Lekh Ram, and, with the latter making its purchase, from one Durga Ram, and, when in contemporaneity, of purchase whereof, tatima borne in Ex.DW1/C was prepared, validity whereof, remains rather hence unshred of its efficacy. Moreover, affidavit borne, in Mark Z/1, personifying the factum of delivery, of, possession of the suit land, being made to Lekh Ram, by one Durga Ram, was also tendered into evidence, (ii) and, despite its being tendered into evidence, the aggrieved defendants' counsel, omitted to contest the truthfulness, of, all the recitals borne therein, specifically appertaining, to the delivery of the possession of the suit land, being made to one Lekh Ram, by one Durga Ram, the latter being the predecessor-in-interest, of one Gangi Devi. The effect(s), of, lack of adduction, of, any efficacious or potent evidence, for overwhelming, the effect of the aforesaid recitals hence occurring in Mark Z/1, does constrain a conclusion, of it, acquiring an aura of veracity, besides also its corroborating the deposition of PW-2. In aftermath, the learned Courts below, apparently did not err, in concluding, of, the suit khasra number being exclusively owned, and, possessed by the plaintiff. 11. Be that as it may, both the learned Courts below, had placed reliance upon Ext. PX, exhibit whereof, comprises, a verdict pronounced by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, upon, Civil Appeal No.98 of 1999, in a lis inter se Lekh Ram, and, against four defendants, two amongst whom, are, the successors-in-interest, of, one Durga Ram, AND, whereunder, on anvil of a compromise deed Ex. PX, exhibit whereof, comprises, a verdict pronounced by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, upon, Civil Appeal No.98 of 1999, in a lis inter se Lekh Ram, and, against four defendants, two amongst whom, are, the successors-in-interest, of, one Durga Ram, AND, whereunder, on anvil of a compromise deed Ex. CA, which occurred inter se the litigant(s) therein, (i) hence a declaratory decree, carrying a vivid pronouncement qua one Lekh Ram, wherefrom whom, the plaintiff, had, purchased the suit land, comprised in khasra No. 177/48/1 measuring 2 biswas, being owned and possessed, by the aforesaid Lekh Ram. Uncontrovertedly, the, therein ascribed suit kahsra No., is, Khasra No. 177/48/1, and, the extant suit khasra Number whereof, is, 215/177/48, and, it carries an area of two biswas, and, reiteratedly uncontestedly the aforesaid previous suit, is, vis-a-vis the extant suit khasra numbers, and, alike in respect(s) whereof Ex.Px, was pronounced. Consequently, given the similarity, of, the apt khasra number, in respect whereof Ex. Px was pronounced, vis-avis the extant suit khasra number, (ii) thereupon, the affirmative declaratory decree, as, pronounced, vis-a-vis, the person(s), wherefrom whom, the plaintiff, has, derived his right, title or interest in the suit land, is hence enjoined to be revered, (iii) besides is biding upon the defendants, who are the successors-in-interest, of, one Durga Ram, wherefrom whom, one Lekh Ram, the vendor of the plaintiff, purchased the suit khasra number. (iv) More so, when two, amongst the successors-in-interest, of, one Durga Ram, were arrayed, in Ex. Px, as party(ies), in, the apposite array of defendants, (v) and when no evidence, is adduced, qua the subsisting interest(s), in, the estate of one Durga Ram, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the aggrieved defendants, being also amenable to be represented by the aggrieved defendants, whereas, it being therein represented, by only two amongst, his heirs, namely, Balia and Nathy, (vi) evidence whereof, was, comprised in the legal heir certificate, being tendered into evidence. However, the apposite legal heir certificate remained untendered into evidence, thereupon, the pronouncement, borne in Ex.Px, is construed, to be binding, upon, the aggrieved defendants herein, despite, theirs being not arrayed, in Ex. Px, in the apposite array of defendants. 12. However, the apposite legal heir certificate remained untendered into evidence, thereupon, the pronouncement, borne in Ex.Px, is construed, to be binding, upon, the aggrieved defendants herein, despite, theirs being not arrayed, in Ex. Px, in the apposite array of defendants. 12. Furthermore, even if, for, ensuring the appropriate watching, of, the apt interest(s), in litigation, in, Civil Suit bearing No. 136/1 of 1997, decided on 25.8.1999, wherefrom Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1999, had arisen, and, whereon a decision borne in Ex.PX was rendered, also rendered imperative hence the participation therein, of, even the aggrieved defendants, (I) thereupon, it was incumbent, upon, the aggrieved defendants, to, adduce forthright evidence, with, candid displays in concurrence therewith, hence, occurring therein. However, the aforesaid evidence is amiss hereat, (ii) consequently, even if, the aggrieved defendants, had a right, to participate in the earlier suit, whereon, an pronouncement, borne in Ex.PX, hence occurred, (iii) yet when their apt interests therein were watched, by two amongst the successors-in-interest of Durga Ram, thereupon, it is to be concluded, that despite, their non participation therein, their interest, in the earlier litigation, being, properly watched, by two amongst the successors-in-interest, of Durga Ram, thereupon, the pronouncement made in Ex.Px, is, also compatibly binding upon the aggrieved defendants. 13. However, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, contends, that with Prem Singh, not standing arrayed, as party in the earlier suit, hence he cannot derive any leverage therefrom. However, the aforesaid submission, is rudderless, as Prem Singh, plaintiff herein, has apparently, derived his interest in the suit land, from the arrayed therein plaintiff, one Lekh Ram, hence, all the benefits bestowed thereunder, upon, Lekh Ram, his vendor, are compatibly accruable besides bestowable upon the plaintiff herein. 14. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellants/defendants. 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellants/defendants. 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.