JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this appeal, appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No. 24-K/XIII-02, dated 01.01.2004, whereby, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP, in Civil Suit No. RBTCS No. 92/2000/97, dated 13.11.2001, vide which learned trial Court had dismissed the suit so filed by the present appellant for permanent prohibitory injunction. 2. This appeal was admitted on 02.11.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether both the learned court below erred in appreciating the provisions of law applicable, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? (b) Whether contradictory findings as recorded by courts below i.e. on the one hand plaint/counter claim has been returned and said findings having been affirmed and on the other hand holding defendant No. 1 to be in possession as tenant have vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees?” 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under:- Appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants therein on the ground that the land comprising in Khata No. 51, Khatauni No. 81, Khasra No. 1151, measuring 0-42-30 Hectares, situated in Mohal Chhari-Dodhamb, Mauza Chhari, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, (HP), (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’), was entered in the joint ownership of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 to 4 and their mother Seelan Devi as also Champa Devi and in exclusive possession of proforma defendants No.2 to 4 and their sister Seelan Devi. According to the plaintiff, he and proforma defendants No. 2 to 4 and their mother and sister were also entered in joint ownership of the suit land which was in exclusive possession of Shri Srikanth, predecessor in interest of defendants No. 2 to 4 and their mother and sister. Further as per plaintiff, entire holding of land including the suit land stood mutually partitioned between Shri Prithi Singh, father of the plaintiff (half share) and late Shri Srikanth (father of defendants No. 2 to 4 to the extent of half share) as they were real brothers. Further as per plaintiff, entire holding of land including the suit land stood mutually partitioned between Shri Prithi Singh, father of the plaintiff (half share) and late Shri Srikanth (father of defendants No. 2 to 4 to the extent of half share) as they were real brothers. According to the plaintiff, since his lifetime, he was in settled possession of half share and so were proforma defendants. It was further the case of the plaintiff that though the entire holding of the land stood mutually partitioned between plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 4 but in revenue record, the same was not entered. Further as per plaintiff, contesting defendant, i.e. defendant No. 1, who was absolute stranger to the suit land, without any right, title or interest, had instituted a civil suit, bearing No. 241 of 1990 against the plaintiff and Shri Srikanth (predecessor-in-interest of proforma defendants No. 2 to 4) in the Court of Sub Judge (1), Dharamshala, claiming that he was tenant on part of the suit land to the extent of 0-13-61 Hectares and had become owner of the same under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. During the pendency of the said suit, learned trial Court framed a preliminary issue. This issue was “Whether the suit is barred under Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act as alleged?” As per plaintiff, this issue was decided in favour of present plaintiff and against defendant No. 1 vide judgment dated 28.10.1995, which was never challenged. According to the plaintiff, about a month back, defendant No. 1 had started threatening the plaintiff in open that he would forcibly occupy the suit land and he had also again started reclaiming his tenancy over the suit land to the extent of 0-13-61 hectares, without any possession over the same. On these pleadings, the suit was filed praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and proforma defendants and against defendant No. 1. 4. This suit was contested by defendant No. 1, who also filed Counter Claim. The stand of the said defendant was that he was tenant qua the suit land to the extent of 0-13-72 Hectares and had become proprietor of the same on the inception of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 4. This suit was contested by defendant No. 1, who also filed Counter Claim. The stand of the said defendant was that he was tenant qua the suit land to the extent of 0-13-72 Hectares and had become proprietor of the same on the inception of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. According the said defendant, part of Khasra No. 1151 depicted as 1151/1 was under the tenancy of his father in old Khasra No. 693 min., which tenancy had devolved upon the said defendant and he had become owner of the suit land by virtue of the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Defendant feigned ignorance with regard to partition proceedings as alleged in the plaint. As per him, his father was recorded as tenant and after death of his father in the year 1968, tenancy rights stood devolved upon him who thereafter became proprietor of the same. It was further mentioned in the written statement that there was no question of defendant interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as it was defendant who was in possession of the land in issue. 5. By way of Counter Claim, defendant sought a decree of declaration for permanent prohibitory injunction that as the defendant had acquired proprietary rights over the land in issue, the plaintiff deserved to be restrained by grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of defendant No. 1 and in case, any change qua possession takes place, then the same deserved to be restored by grant of mandatory injunction. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 is tenant at will over the land measuring 0-13-75 Hects qua field No. 115/1 and now has acquired proprietary rights as alleged by way of Counter Claim? OPD1. 3. Whether the defendant No. 1 is entitled for relief of injunction by way of counter claim ? OPD1 4. Whether the counter claim of defendant No 1 is not maintainable, as alleged ? OPP 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the Counter Claim ? OPP 6. Whether the defendant No. 1 is estopped from making Couter Claim ? OPP 7. Whether the Counter Claim is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party ? OPP 8. Relief.” 7. Whether the counter claim of defendant No 1 is not maintainable, as alleged ? OPP 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the Counter Claim ? OPP 6. Whether the defendant No. 1 is estopped from making Couter Claim ? OPP 7. Whether the Counter Claim is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party ? OPP 8. Relief.” 7. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, both ocular as well as documentary in support of their respective cases, the issues so framed were answered by the learned trial Court in the following manner:- “Issue No.1 : No. Issue No. 2 : Undecided. Issue No. 3 : Undecided. Issue No.4 : Undecided. Issue No. 5 : Yes Issue No. 6 : Undecided. Issue No. 7 :Undecided Issue No. 8 : Suit is dismissed as per operative portion of judgment. However counter claim are returned to defendant No. 1 for filing in proper court.” 8. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 13.11.2001 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and as far as Counter Claim of defendant No. 1 was concerned, the same was returned for being filed in the proper Court as learned trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction under Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act to deal with the same. While dismissing the suit, it was held by the learned trial Court that evidence led by the parties demonstrated that plaintiff and Shri Srikanth i.e. father of defendants No. 2 to 4, were recorded in the column of ownership of the suit land but in the column of possession, possession of Srikanth and others was reflected. Learned trial Court further held that a perusal of Ext. P-2, P-3 and P-5 demonstrated that plaintiff and proforma defendants were owners of the suit land. It further held that in his cross examination, PW1 (Plaintiff) had deposed that he did not knew about old khasra number of the suit land and he also stated that new khasra number of the suit land was 1152. Learned trial Court held that this was incorrect because as per records, Khasra number was not 1152 but it was 1151. On these basis, learned trial Court concluded that it seemed that plaintiff himself was not aware about the exact number of khasras. Learned trial Court held that this was incorrect because as per records, Khasra number was not 1152 but it was 1151. On these basis, learned trial Court concluded that it seemed that plaintiff himself was not aware about the exact number of khasras. It further held that though plaintiff had stated that two FIRs stood registered against the defendant with regard to his illegal interference over the suit land, but in fact, there was no such FIR on record. It further held that mere threatening was not enough and some overt act ought to have been done by the parties and damage ought to have been caused to other party(s) and plaintiff had failed to prove the same. Learned trial Court held that statement of plaintiff was not enough to prove the cause of action and as the relief for grant of injunction is a discretionary relief, it cannot be misused on the basis of apprehension. Learned trial Court held that plaintiff was duty bound to prove the overt act of defendant No. 1, which he miserably failed to do. As far as Counter Claim of the defendant was concerned, the same was not adjudicated upon by holding that jurisdiction of the Court was barred under Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 9. The judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff only. In appeal, learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by holding that as the factum of father of defendant No. 1 being tenant over the suit land was a matter of record, the only fact which was required to be scrutinized was whether there was relinquishment of tenancy, as was the case put by plaintiff. Learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff had neither produced on record any documents nor any report from which it could be inferred that father of defendant No. 1 had relinquished his tenancy. Learned Appellate Court further held that as there was no proof of relinquishment of tenancy by father of defendant No. 1, therefore, tenancy continued and evidence also suggested that defendant No. 1 was in possession of 3 Kanals and 11 Marlas out of the suit land. On these basis, learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 10. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the present appeal. 11. On these basis, learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 10. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the present appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 12. As I have already mentioned above, this appeal was admitted on 02.11.2004, on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether both the learned court below erred in appreciating the provisions of law applicable, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? (b) Whether contradictory findings as recorded by courts below i.e. on the one hand plaint/counter claim has been returned and said findings having been affirmed and on the other hand holding defendant No. 1 to be in possession as tenant have vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees?” 13. I will deal with both the substantial questions of law together. Record demonstrates that learned trial Court did not decide issues No. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and decided only Issue No. 1 and 5. 14. Issue No. 1 was ‘Whether the plaintiff was entitled for relief of injunction’. Similarly Issue No. 5 was ‘Whether the Court had no jurisdiction to try the Counter Claim’. Whereas Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff, Issue No. 5 was decided against the defendant. Because the defendant has not assailed the findings so returned on Issue No. 5, therefore, the same is not the subject matter of the present appeal. 15. As far as Issue No. 1 is concerned, this issue was decided against the plaintiff by the learned trial Court by holding that plaintiff had failed to prove on record that there was any interference being caused over the suit land by defendant No. 1 and relief of injunction being a discretionary relief, the same could not be granted until and unless the party concerned by way of cogent evidence demonstrated that there was interference being caused by the other party. 16. The factum of plaintiff not being able to establish any interference over the suit land by the defendant has been again reiterated in its judgment and decree by the learned Appellate Court. 17. 16. The factum of plaintiff not being able to establish any interference over the suit land by the defendant has been again reiterated in its judgment and decree by the learned Appellate Court. 17. This demonstrates that there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below against the plaintiff that the said plaintiff failed to prove that there was any interference being caused by defendant No. 1 over the suit land. In my considered view, the findings so returned by both the learned Courts below are not perverse findings as the same are duly borne out from the records of the case. In order to appreciate this, it is relevant to take note of deposition of plaintiff himself, who entered the witness box as PW1. In his examination-in-chief, PW1 deposed that father of defendant No. 1 had died in the year 1968 and on account of old health, he had relinquished his tenancy in favour of father and uncle of the plaintiff. In his cross examination, he stated that he was not aware as to what was the old khasra number of the disputed property. He further deposed that he was not aware that at the time of alleged relinquishment of tenancy as to whether anything in written was recorded or not. He feigned ignorance to the fact whether or not his father had got recorded relinquishment by way of report to the Patwari. He also feigned ignorance as to whether at the time of relinquishment, any rojnamcha was prepared or not. He further went on to feign ignorance as to how much land was being cultivated by them. 18. Besides him, other witness who deposed in favour of plaintiff is Raj Kumar. In his cross examination this witness deposed that he was not aware that defendant No. 1 or his father were tenants over the suit land at any stage or not. 19. In my considered view, in fact, neither the statement of the plaintiff nor the other witness examined by him nor the evidence produced on record by him gives any conclusive proof of the factum of the tenancy having been relinquished by late father of defendant No. 1 in favour of father of plaintiff or his uncle. 20. 19. In my considered view, in fact, neither the statement of the plaintiff nor the other witness examined by him nor the evidence produced on record by him gives any conclusive proof of the factum of the tenancy having been relinquished by late father of defendant No. 1 in favour of father of plaintiff or his uncle. 20. Be that as it may, there is also no cogent evidence produced on record, as has also been rightly held by the learned Courts below, from which it could be inferred that there is, in fact, any interference over the suit land being caused by defendant No. 1, as alleged by the plaintiff. That being so, the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, disallowing the decree of injunction in favour of plaintiff, cannot be faulted with. Onus was upon the plaintiff to have had proved that defendant was interfering over the suit land without any title or cause and plaintiff has failed to do so. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that learned Courts below have erred either in appreciating the provisions of law or the pleadings of the parties or the evidence adduced. 21. Now, it further cannot be said that there are contradictory findings recorded by the learned Courts below because rejection of the Counter Claim and adjudication on Issue No. 1, as framed by learned trial Court, are totally on different parameters. Whereas Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove the factum of interference over the suit land by defendant No. 1, the Counter claim was ordered to be returned on the ground that the Civil Court was not having jurisdiction to decide the issue raised in it in view of bar contemplated under Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Said findings were returned by the learned trial Court in the course of adjudicating the issues and findings on both these issues i.e. Issue No. 1 and 5, in my considered view, have been rightly returned by the learned trial Court after correctly appreciating the pleadings, as also the relevant statutory provisions. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Said findings were returned by the learned trial Court in the course of adjudicating the issues and findings on both these issues i.e. Issue No. 1 and 5, in my considered view, have been rightly returned by the learned trial Court after correctly appreciating the pleadings, as also the relevant statutory provisions. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. In view of above discussion, as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed and judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are upheld. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.