JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiffs'' suit for rendition of a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction, besides, for rendition, of, a decree for mandatory injunction, stood partly decreed, by the learned trial Court, and, till dismemberment of the joint estate inter se the parties at contest, the plaintiff, was, held entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the aggrieved defendant, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter partly allowed, the appeal, and, modified the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as, pronounced by the learned trial Court, only to the extent of the defendant, being restrained from causing any interference, in, the settled possession of the plaintiff, as, reflected in the apt revenue records, till, the apt joint estate stands partitioned. However, the findings of the learned trial Court, upon, issue No.2 to 6, were affirmed. The plaintiff, is aggrieved therefrom, and, by casting the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court hence strives to beget its reversal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the subject matter of the dispute between the parties is that the land measuring 46-14 bighas, comprising of Khasra Nos. 717, 817, 1115, 1118, 675, 1114, 818, 1108, 1111, 1117, 1120, 1555/1166, 674, 1113, 821, 1109, 1112 and 1119, Kita 18, entered in Khewat No.409, Khatauni Nos. 517 to 522, in mauza Dabat Majari, Pargana Kot Kehloor, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. It is alleged that the plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the suit land along with other o-sharers. Since, the other co-sharers are not raising any construction, as such, they have not been impleaded as party. It is averred that the defendant is threatening to raise forcible construction near the house of the plaintiff, and the defendant has no right whatsoever to raise any construction in the joint land till the land is finally partitioned in accordance with law and the defendant is also threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from his share in the suit land and has further prayed that the construction which as been raised by the defendant be also demolished. It is further alleged that the defendant was requested several times to not interfere with the joint possession of the plaintiff and to admit his claim in the suit land and the failure and refusal of the defendant to do so, the suit was filed. It is further alleged that the defendant was requested several times to not interfere with the joint possession of the plaintiff and to admit his claim in the suit land and the failure and refusal of the defendant to do so, the suit was filed. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has denied that the suit land is joint qua the parties. It is pleaded by the defendant that the suit land has already been partitioned in the family settlement and at present, the parties are in their separate possession of the suit land. It is further averred that the plaintiff is owner of the land to the extent of his share which is already occupied by him in Khewat No.409, Khatoni No. 522 where he has constructed a house and is in exclusive possession of Khasra No.821, 1109, 1112, 1119, land measuring 11-15 bighas. It is further pleaded that the defendant is in exclusive possession of the land of Khasra No.818, 1108, 1111, 1117 and 1120, land measuring 11-12 bighas. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff started disturbing the boundary marks of the land which is recorded in the exclusive possession of the defendant. The defendant has also denied of causing any type of interference with the possession of the plaintiff of his share in the suit land, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted 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 is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has o legally enforceable cause of action, as alleged?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit, as alleged?OPD. 6. Whether the defendant is in exclusive possession of the suit land in a family partition, as alleged?OPD. 7. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit, as alleged?OPD. 6. Whether the defendant is in exclusive possession of the suit land in a family partition, as alleged?OPD. 7. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendant/respondent herein, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court partly allowed the appeal, and, modified the decree recorded, by, the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, has 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, on 10.05.2006 this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the first Appellate Court could not have lawfully modified the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restricting it only to that part, the suit property, which is recorded in possession of the defendant, in the revenue papers, while at the same time affirming the finding of the trial Court that a portion of Khasra No. 1111, which is recorded in possession of the defendant, is also in possession of the plaintiff-appellant? Substantial question of Law No.1: 8. Even though, a reading of the averments, borne in the plaint, make, a, palpable disclosure, (a) of, the defendants rather attempting to raise construction(s) near the house of the plaintiff, whereon, rather the plaintiff espouses qua his planting fruit bearing trees, and, also his thereon installing, a, "gobar gas" plant, (b) yet the defendant, had, in his written statement, rather reared a contention qua contentious Khasra No. 1111, hence, standing recorded in the apt revenue record(s) respectively, borne in Ex. P-1, Ex. DA and Ex. DB, to be exclusively possessed by him, (c) and, had also contended that the afore reflections, as, borne in the afore exhibits, being, a, sequel of a valid family partition, hence, occurring inter se, the, recorded joint owners. P-1, Ex. DA and Ex. DB, to be exclusively possessed by him, (c) and, had also contended that the afore reflections, as, borne in the afore exhibits, being, a, sequel of a valid family partition, hence, occurring inter se, the, recorded joint owners. Though, the factum of recording, of, exclusivity of possession, of, contentious Khasra No.1111, and, of other khasra numbers, by defendant Bhajan Singh, rather may ultimately enable him, to, tenably espouse before the Revenue Officer concerned, to in consonance therewith, hence, draw an apt mode of partition, vis-a-vis, the jointly recorded suit khasra numbers, (d) yet with Ex.PW5/A, rather comprising an application, for, effecting, the, partition of the undivided suit property, being preferred before the revenue officer concerned, hence gears an inference, qua the afore reflections, clearly unraveling qua holding, of, exclusivity of possession, by, each of the co-owners, in the undivided suit property, being construable, to be, mere personal arrangements, and, not tantamounting to theirs, under a valid taksim khangi, as, recorded inter se them, rather proceeding to dismember the apt joint estate, and, thereafter, the, apt reflections finding occurrence therein. 9. Be that as it may, the decree as pronounced by the learned trial Court, for, permanent prohibitory injunction, till, the dismemberment of the joint estate occurs, and, decree whereof was partly modified, by the learned First Appellate Court, only, vis-a-vis, the settled possession of the plaintiff, as recorded in the revenue papers, (i) does also prima facie obviously facilitate, foisting of, validities, vis-a-vis, apt recorded exclusivity of possession, of, co-owners, of, the apt khasra numbers, as, borne in the afore exhibits, borne in Ex. P-1, Ex. DA and Ex. DB, (ii) with, a, concomitant sequel qua the installation, of, "gobar gas plant" by the plaintiff purportedly in the year 1992, purportedly, upon, khasra No. 1111, being also prima facie rather standing gripped with an aura of invalidity. P-1, Ex. DA and Ex. DB, (ii) with, a, concomitant sequel qua the installation, of, "gobar gas plant" by the plaintiff purportedly in the year 1992, purportedly, upon, khasra No. 1111, being also prima facie rather standing gripped with an aura of invalidity. However, before proceeding to determine, the, validity, of, the afore pronouncement, as, recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, whereunder, it appears to have scored off, the effect, of, installation of a "gobar gas plant" by the plaintiff purportedly, upon, khasra No. 1111, (iii) it is deemed imperative, to, dehors Ex.PW5/A, though, comprising, an, application preferred before the Revenue Officer concerned, whereunder, the plaintiff, is, seeking dismemberment, of, the apt joint estate, (iv) and, with its pendency rather prima facie, negativing, the validity, qua exclusivity of possession, of, each of the co-owners, in, the undivided land, (v) rather hence allude to the deposition, rendered by the plaintiff, and, as, borne in his cross-examination, wherein, he acquiesced to a suggestion qua, except, the contentious suit khasra No. 1111, there being no dispute qua the afore khasra number, vis-a-vis, the other recorded co-owners, (vi) and, also his further acquiescing qua apt khasra girdawaries being prepared, (vii) wherefrom an inference, is sparked qua the plaintiff, accepting, the, reflections borne in Ex.PW5/A, wherein each of the respective co-owner, is, depicted to be holding exclusive possession, of, those khasra numbers, as, embodied therein, and, importantly with khasra No.1111, being, in, the apt afore exhibits, rather reflected to be in, the, exclusive possession, of defendant Bhajan Singh, thereupon, the plaintiff also acquiescing qua the veracity, of, the apt reflections, borne, in the aforesaid exhibits, (viii) besides when the aforesaid factum of settled exclusive possession, of, certain khasra numbers, borne in the undivided suit land, is, the apt parameter, for, rather drawing, the, apt relevant mode of partition, besides also warrants meteing, of, apt deference, in, the drawing up, of, the instrument, of, partition, (ix) thereupon, it appears that the plaintiff, has, taken to unnecessarily wrangle, with, defendant Bhajan Singh, only, for his purportedly rather usurping, the, defendant Bhajan Singh''s possession, visa-vis, a part, of, Khasra No. 1111, (x) usurpation whereof, is, concerted by his making strivings, for, hence establishing qua his installing the apt "gobar gas plant", upon, khasra No. 1111/1, as reflected in tatima Ex.PW6/A. The defendant, has, contrarily contended qua his installing the apt "gobar gas plant", upon, the afore referred portion, of, khasra No. 1111/1. PW-6, who prepared Ex.PW6/A stepped into the witness box, and, has rendered, a, testification, qua his previously holding demarcation, of, the afore khasra No. 1111, and, thereat his noticing qua the plaintiff Nirmal Singh, rather installing his "gobar gas plant", upon, a, portion thereof, and, as, disclosed in the rather subsequent therewith prepared tatima, exhibited as Ex.PW6/A. However, the afore referred testification, of, PW6, is, vulnerable to the gravest doubt, given his ex facie making disclosure, in, his examination-in-chief, qua his in contemporaneity, of, his holding demarcation of khasra No. 1111, on 20.11.2000, his thereat noticing qua upon, a, part thereof, importantly, upon, khasra No. 1111/1, the, apt installation of a "gobar gas plant" being made by the plaintiff, (xi) given readings, of, Ex. DD, Ex,DE and EX. DF, rather not, underscoring the aforesaid factum. Furthermore, when, in, contemporaneity thereto, he omitted to prepare a tatima, with, a clear pronouncement therein qua, upon, a, portion of khasra No. 1111, the plaintiff rather installing a "gobar gas plan". In sequel, any reverence as meted thereto, was, untenable, and, any drawing of any purported conclusion by the learned First Appellate Court, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff holding settled possession thereof, was also, inapt. Even otherwise, with this Court for afore reasons, anvilled, upon, the afore acquiescences, made by the plaintiff, during, the course of his being held, to, cross-examination by the learned counsel, for the defendant, hence rests, a, firm conclusion, qua, the respective co-owners, rather accepting the validities, of, the apt entries, as, borne in the relevant revenue record, with echoings therein, vis-avis, each holding exclusivity of possession, of, those khasra numbers, as, find apt reflection against their names, (xii) thereupon, the aforesaid factum, when is legally expostulated to warrant meteing, of, deference thereto by the revenue officers concerned, in the latter proceeding to dismember, the joint estate, thereupon, the decree rendered, by the learned first appellate Court, is, just and equitable, vis-a-vis, it validating the apt reflections, as, borne in the revenue records, and, also the decree of injunction, as, pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, qua till culmination, of, the partition proceedings, its, holding force, is also both just and tenable. 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. 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. Accordingly substantial questions of law is answered in favour of the the respondents and against the appellants. 11. In view of above discussion, there is no merit the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2003, is, affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.