JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Dharamshala, dated 01.01.2004, in Civil Appeal No. 37-P/XIII-2002, whereby while dismissing the appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, Ist Class-II, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 378/1994, dated 10.01.2002, vide which learned trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants. 2. This appeal was admitted on 25.10.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether both the courts below totally misread and misappreciated document Ex.P-11/D4 thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? (b) Whether statement of DW-1 and documents Ex. P-1 to P-16 stand misread and misappreciated by the courts below, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that as per the plaintiff he was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 261 min, Khatoni No. 594 min, Khasra No. 664, land measuring 0-11- 44 Hects. According to the plaintiff, land comprised in Khasra Nos. 57, 59 and 60 was in possession of Ghantha son of Punnu, Gasaun and Bhagwan Dass sons of Salahi and Balia son of Dass. Ghantha died intestate and his estate was inherited by his wife Renkoo and after the death of Renkoo, her estate was inherited by Balia, Lohka and Teju. Claim putforth by one Phindu that he was son of Ghantha was rejected by the Revenue Officer. Further, as per the plaintiff, after the death of Balia and Lohka, their estate vested in plaintiff, who thus became sole owner in possession of the suit land. Phindu and his sons Tara and Punnu were being shown in revenue record as sons and grand-sons of Ghantha which entries were liable to be deleted being incorrect entries. Further, as per the plaintiff Tara son of Phindu also died intestate and his estate was inherited by his brother Punnu Ram. Said Punnu Ram i.e. defendant No. 1 claimed himself to be the son of Ghantha on the basis of wrong and incorrect entries in the Shajra Nasab and claimed share in the suit land. Further, as per the plaintiff Tara son of Phindu also died intestate and his estate was inherited by his brother Punnu Ram. Said Punnu Ram i.e. defendant No. 1 claimed himself to be the son of Ghantha on the basis of wrong and incorrect entries in the Shajra Nasab and claimed share in the suit land. As per the plaintiff, the defendants were threatening to occupy forcibly a portion of the suit land and to disturb the possession of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he had requested the defendants on many occasions not to do so but they did not pay any heed. In this background, as per the plaintiff, he was entitled for a decree of declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and that the name of Phindu shown in the Shajra Nasab as son of Ghantha was wrong and liable to be deleted. The plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs in the plaints:- "A). Declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession of the land entered in Khata No. 261min, Khatoni No. 595 min, khasra No. 664 (Abadi Deh) land measuring 0-11-44 Hects.) vide jamabandi 1987-88 situated in Mohal Dadh Jhikla, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra (H.P) and that the name of Phindu who is shown in the Shajra Nasab of Bandobast Jadid as son of Shri Ghantha is wrong and is liable to be deleted as Phindu was not the son of Ghantha, who died intestate and the property of Ghantha was inherited by his widow Renkoo and the property of Renkoo was inherited by Sarvshri Balia, Lohku and Teju and that defendants have no right, title or interest or have absolutely no concern with the suit land - with a consequential relief of permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the suit land. B). Possession of the land on the basis of title as an additional relief." 4. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants who took the stand that the suit land was jointly owned by the parties and that defendant No. 1 was owner of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share. As per the defendants, defendant No. 1 was also in possession of the suit land partly and his possession was distinct and exclusive. As per the defendants, defendant No. 1 was also in possession of the suit land partly and his possession was distinct and exclusive. Further the case of the defendants was that vide mutation No. 58 dated 20.03.1920 the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff admitted ownership of the father of defendant No. 1 in their ancestral property. It was further mentioned in the written statement that as father of defendant No. 1 was also in possession of ancestral property, he was therefore, rightly recorded as such in the revenue record. Though, defendants admitted that the plaintiff succeeded the share of Balia and Lohka. However, they denied that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the suit land. According to the defendants, ownership of the plaintiff in the suit land was only to the extent of 2/ 3rd share and 1/ 3rd belonged to defendant No.1. It was further mentioned in the written statement that defendant No. 1 was son of late Phindu who was son of Ghantha and this was admitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. It was further the stand of the defendants that defendant No. 1 was owner to the extent of 1/ 3rd share in the suit land as he inherited the ancestral property of the parties to the extent of share as was evident from mutation No.129 dated 29.04.1922. On these basis, defendants stated that as defendant No. 1 was also owner to the extent of 1/3rd share of the suit land and the plaintiff had no right to claim the relief as prayed for. 5. By way of his replication, the plaintiff reiterated his contention. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants? OPP 2-A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for for the decree, as claimed? OPP 2-B. Whether the defendants have become owner of suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 7. Relief. 7. OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 7. Relief. 7. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective stands before learned trial Court, the following findings were returned to the issues so framed by it:- Issue No. 1: No Issue No. 2: No Issue No.2-A: No Issue No.2-B: No Issue No. 3: No Issue No. 4: No Issue No. 5: No Issue No. 6: No Relief : The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as per operative part of this judgment. 8. Accordingly, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.2002 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by learned trial Court that the revenue record demonstrated that Phindu, father of defendant No. 1 was recorded as son of Ghantha. The pedigree table and other evidence on record also demonstrated that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had admitted the parentage of Phindu, as Ghantha at the time of mutation entered on 20.03.1920 Ext. P-11. Learned trial Court also held that parentage of Phindu was not challenged during his life time and there was no convincing evidence which demonstrated that Phindu was not son of Ghantha especially when revenue record reflected that Phindu was recorded as son of Ghanta. Learned trial Court also held that defendant Punnu Ram was also owner of the suit land in the village and he had acquired ownership by way of inheritance from Phindu and as such, he had right over the suit land which was abadi deh and there was no convincing evidence which demonstrated that the plaintiff was absolute owner of the suit land which was a village site. On these basis, the suit was dismissed. 9. In appeal, the findings returned by learned trial Court were upheld. Learned Appellate Court held that the documents on record demonstrated that prior to 1935 Phindu was considered to be son of Ghantha and he succeeded to the property of Ghantha in that capacity. On these basis, the suit was dismissed. 9. In appeal, the findings returned by learned trial Court were upheld. Learned Appellate Court held that the documents on record demonstrated that prior to 1935 Phindu was considered to be son of Ghantha and he succeeded to the property of Ghantha in that capacity. It further held that the oral evidence led by the parties demonstrated that PW-1 plaintiff Pinju admitted getting 4 kanals 12 marlas land by Phindu and that he also got from his father 4 kanals 12 marlas land. He admitted his signature Ext. D-1 on the compromise Mark-X vide which some criminal dispute was settled by the plaintiff with defendant No. 1. Learned Appellate Court held that in this compromise plaintiff admitted defendant No. 1 in possession of 6 marlas of abadi land since last 40 years and plaintiff had admitted possession of defendant No. 1 over 4 marlas outside the abadi. Learned Appellate Court also held that jamabandis on record demonstrated that the abadi deh in issue was in possession of Ghantha, Bhagwanu, Gasaun sons of Salahi and Balia son of Dass, which thus proved that Ghantha was also owner of the suit property and on his death, he was succeeded by his widow Renkoo and son Phindu. On these basis, it was held by learned Appellate Court that defendant No. 1 was son of Phindu and grandson of Ghantha and consequently, he also had share in the suit property which was also coming in his possession. On these basis, it was held by learned Appellate Court that it was not possible to conclude that defendant No. 1 was not grandson of Ghantha. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants preferred this appeal, which was admitted on the substantial questions of law referred to above. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both learned Courts below. 12. I will deal with both the substantial questions of law together. 13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that there is concurrent finding in favour of defendant No. 1 by learned Courts below that he is the grand-son of Ghantha. 12. I will deal with both the substantial questions of law together. 13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that there is concurrent finding in favour of defendant No. 1 by learned Courts below that he is the grand-son of Ghantha. Both learned Courts below have held that the documents on record clearly and categorically demonstrated that the father of defendant No. 1 was son of Ghantha. This fact also stood admitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff who had not disputed the same at the time when mutations were entered into in favour of the father of defendant No. 1 in his capacity as son of Ghantha. Now the said findings returned by both learned Courts below are duly borne out from the records as revenue documents on record do demonstrate the same. In fact, the factum of mutation being entered in the name of Phindu and the same being accepted by other persons present there like Lohku and Teju is duly incorporated in Ext. D-4 and Ext. P-11. It cannot be said from the record that statement of DW-1 namely Punnu was misappreciated by learned Courts below. This witness stated on oath that he and Pinju Ram were co-owners of the suit land and that his share over the same was 1/ 3rd. He deposed in the Court that name of his grand-father was Ghantha Ram. He further stated that name of the father of Phindu was Ghantha Ram. He also stated that the property of Ghantha Ram was inherited by his grandmother Renkoo and after the death of Renkoo it was wrongly entered in the name of Teju and Lohku which was later on corrected and thereafter share of Ghantha was mutated in favour of his father when both Teju and Lohku accepted their mistake. Now, in his cross-examination, he categorically denied that Phindu was not the son of Ghantha or that Ghantha was issueless. In this view of the matter, it is not understood as to how it can be said that statement of DW-1 was misread and misappreciated by both learned Courts below. 14. As far as misreading and misappreciation of Exts. P-1 to P-16 is concerned, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate as to how the said documents stood misread or misappreciated. 14. As far as misreading and misappreciation of Exts. P-1 to P-16 is concerned, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate as to how the said documents stood misread or misappreciated. These exhibits which are copies of jamabandis and mutations etc. clearly establish the fact that Phindu was the son of Ghantha Ram and defendant No. 1 is son of Phindu. Pedigree table Exts. P-9 and P-10 clearly reflect the relationship between the parties as has also been held by learned Courts below. Not only this, the mutations on record also clearly demonstrate as to how the property devolved upon Phindu. A harmonious perusal of Ext. P-1 jamabamndi for the year 1967-68, Ext. P-2 Misal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid and Ext. P-3 jamabandi for the year 1937- 38 read alongwith entries in Ext. P-4 jamabandi for the year 1960-61, clearly and categorically demonstrates that originally Ghantha also was owner of the suit property and on his death he was succeeded by his widow Renkoo and thereafter, his son Phindu. Defendant No. 1 being son of Phindu and grand-son of Ghantha Ram thus had share in the suit property which was coming in his possession. All these facts find mention in the judgments passed by learned Courts below with reference to the relevant exhibits and none of the exhibits have been misread or misconstrued by learned Courts below. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. In my considered view, neither the evidence on record nor the statements of the witnesses have been incorrectly appreciated by both learned Courts below. The findings returned by both learned Courts below are duly borne out from the records and, therefore, there is no perversity in the same. 16. In view of above discussion, as there is no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.