JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff''s suit for rendition of a decree for perpetual injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, stood, dismissed by the learned trial Court, and, in an appeal carried therefrom, by, the aggrieved defendant, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court reversed the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court. The defendant/appellant herein being aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant on the allegations that he had been in possession of the suit land detailed in the plaint. In the books of the Collector, Khasra No. 33, measuring 5 bighas, 15 biswas had been recorded under the ownership of the State. The state right holders had been recorded in possession. At the time of last settlement, new Khasra No. 576, 577 and 580 had been carved out of old khasra No. 33min (33/2). The plaintiff had been coowner in possession of Khasra No. 32. The suit land was towards the western side of khasra No. 32. The plaintiff had taken possession of the suit land more than 30 years back and had planted an apple orchard thereon. The village Patwari on 17.03.1988 had reported encroachment of the suit land against the plaintiff to the authorities vide reference Mark Px. The plaintiff had not been ejected from the suit land. Defendant on 3.5.1990 had issued civil suit No. 39/1 of 1990 against the State and had claimed ownership of Khasra No. 33/1, measuring 1 bigha, 5 biswas, out of total area measuring 5 bighas 15 biswas of Khasra No. 33. The State had resisted the suit of the defendant. The learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Theog, vide judgment and decree of 20.01.1993 had erroneously decreed the civil suit No. 39/1 of 1990 of the defendant and had declared him owner in possession of Khasra Nos. 28 and 33, measuring 7 bighas 18 biswas, whereas, the defendant had claimed ownership and possession of Khasra No. 33/1, measuring 1 bigha 5 biswas and Khasra No. 28, measuring 2 Bighas, 6 biswas. After passing of the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1993, the defendant, contrary tot he fact situation, had been recorded owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant had started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. After passing of the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1993, the defendant, contrary tot he fact situation, had been recorded owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant had started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. He had been requested not to do so, but in vain. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections inter alia, maintainability, misjoinder and limitation. On merits, the defendant had amditted of his having instituted Civil Suit No. 39/1 of 1990 and had claimed ownership and possession of Khasra Nos. 28 and 33/1, measuring 3 bighas, 11 bsiwas. The State had resisted the suit of the defendant. The learned Sub Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.1993 had decreed the suit of the defendant. In the books of the Collector, the defendant had been rightly recorded as owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff as also the State had not appealed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.01.1993. Mutation on the strength of the decree of th Court stood sanctioned in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff had not been in possession of the suit land. He had not planted apple plants therein. The plaintiff without any locus standi and cause of action had instituted false and frivolous suit and was not entitled to any relief much less to the discretionary relief of inunction. 4. 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 to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder of necessary party?OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit?OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD. 7. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent herein, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded, by the learned trial Court. 6. 7. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent herein, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded, by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 01.11.2012 this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court can be sustained ignoring the fact that in the previous suit the appellant had been declared to be owner of the entire suit land? Substantial question of Law No. 1: 7. Since, the hereinabove extracted substantial question of law, stood, formulated by this Court on 1.11.2012, hence, this Court is constrained, to, pronounce a verdict thereon. However, even if, assumingly an affirmative answer, vis-a-vis, the defendant/appellant herein, is pronounced thereon, (a) given the defendant/appellant under a conclusive decree, pronounced, upon Civil Suit No. 39/1 of 1990 decided on 21.01.1993, being declared to be owner in possession of the suit land, comprised in Khasra No. 28 and 33/1, kitas 2, measuring 3 Bighas 11 biswas, old khasra numbers whereof are ascribed hence the extant khasra numbers, (b) yet the effect of the defendant/appellant, rather being pronounced, under, a conclusive verdict, to be owner of suit kahsra numbers, (c) and, also if jamabandis prepared vis-a-vis, the suit kahsra numbers, as, comprised in Ex. D- 3, exhibit whereof is a copy of Missal Hakiayat Bandobast Jadid, prepared for the year 2001-2003, and, as comprised, in, the jamabandi for the year 2004-2005, rather also makes displays, of, the aggrieved defendant/appellant, being reflected therein, to be ownerin-possession of the suit land, (d) preeminently when hence a presumption of truth, is, attached qua the entries borne therein, (e) nonetheless, the test for determining qua the plaintiff being entitled, to a simplicitor decree of perpetual injunction, is, solitarily comprised, in the latter evidently holding possession, of, the suit khasra numbers, (f) and, only upon adduction, of, apposite potent besides cogent evidence, whereupon, the presumption of truth attached, vis-a-vis, the relevant revenue records, hence, carrying the aforesaid reflections, rather stands rebutted, (g) thereupon, hence the plaintiff would stand entitled to rendition of a decree of perpetual injunction. The aggrieved defendant/appellant thereupon would obviously, given, his not instituting a suit for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, may prima facie, be precluded to validly resist any rendition, of, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, qua the respondent/plaintiff. 8. Be that as it may, hence it is imperative to guage, the, relevant efficacies, of, the entries, as, carried in the relevant revenue records, with, disclosures therein, qua the defendant/appellant, being owner in possession, of, the suit kahsra number, and, also to fathom, the efficacy, of the evidence adduced, in rebuttal thereto, (i) yet at the outset, it is imperative to allude, to, the reasoning meted by the learned trial Court, in its making, a conclusion qua the plaintiff''s suit hence warranting dismissal. The reasoning, as assigned by the learned trial Court, in making the aforesaid conclusion, is embedded, upon Mark Px, and, Mark Py, exhibits whereof, rather unfold, the, trite factum, of, initiation, of, proceedings against the plaintiff, under, Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, hence rather remaining unproven in accordance with law. However, the tenacity of the aforesaid reasoning, rather falters, in, the apparent face of the plaintiff''s application, cast before the learned first Appellate Court, under, the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, standing, allowed, in sequel whereof, the apposite leave, for, tendering into evidence, an, order rendered on 6.10.1990 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, hence, stood granted, and, obviously thereafter its stood exhibited, as Ex.PXX. The aforesaid order makes a palpable disclosure qua the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, on receiving the apt report, from, the village Patwari, his, thereafter proceeding to order, for, the eviction of the plaintiff, from, the suit khasra numbers, yet apparently the aforesaid order remained unexecuted. Even if, the aforesaid order remained unexecuted or not enforced, yet it does foist an inference, of, the plaintiff holding unauthorised possession, of, the suit khasra numbers, and, the further apt sequitur thereof, is, of his holding possession thereof, and, concomitantly, the plaintiff being validly enjoined to seek protection, against, the purported invasions or interferences, caused thereon, by the aggrieved defendants, unless he stood evicted in accordance with law, by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. 9. However, at this stage, even if, the defendant/appellant, has been declared as owner-inpossession, of the suit kahsra number, under, a conclusive decree pronounced, upon, Civil Suit No. 39/1 of 1990, decided, on, 20.01.1993, and, when hence he may resist the initiation of coercive processes, by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade concerned, for, rather restoring possession thereof, vis-a-vis, the State, (i) reiteratedly when the decree pronounced upon Civil Suit No. 39/1 of 1990, wherein the State of Himachal Pradesh, stood, arrayed as defendant, and, with the latter rather omitting, to, make apt concerts, to, beget its reversal, rather, hence, renders it, to, nowat hence acquire conclusivity, (ii) hence, while reserving, vis-a-vis, the defendant/appellant all apt legal recourses, for, apt restoration(s) of possession, vis-a-vis, him, by the Collector concerned, upon the latter ensuring eviction, of the plaintiff, from the suit land, nonetheless, thereupto, for all aforesaid reasons, an apt decree of injunction is enjoined to be meted vis-a-vis the plaintiff, given his extantly holding even if uauthorisedly, rather physical possession, of, the suit khasra number(s). 10. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being 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. Substantial questions of law No. 1 is answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and, against the defendant/appellant. 11. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Substantial questions of law No. 1 is answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and, against the defendant/appellant. 11. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Shimla, upon Civil Appeal No. 65- S/13 of 2009 is affirmed, and, maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.