JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Despite effectuation of service, upon, respondent No.2, he has omitted to record his appearance before this Court either in person or through authorized counsel, hence, he is proceeded against ex-parte. 2. The suit khasra numbers, qua, wherewith, the plaintiff one Ramesh Chand, instituted a suit for rendition, of, a decree, of permanent prohibitory injunction, and, for restraining the defendants, from, raising construction thereon, (i) stand borne in land measuring 00-09-83 hectare, comprised in khewat No. 116, khatauni No. 261 and 264, (ii) and stand comprised in khasra No. 2554, 2541, 2543, 2544, 2545, and, 2565, (ii) as well as in land measuring 00-04-89 hectare, and, stand comprised in khewat No. 167, khatauni No. 265, khasra Nos. 2542 and 2556, situated, in village Ghanari Brahmna Changa, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. 3. The afore espousal, for, rendition of the afore decree, stands rested upon the afore suit khasra Nos., being un-partitioned, and, till dismemberment thereof, hence occurring through metes and bonds, (i) thereupto, all the co-owners thereon hence holding unity of title, and, community of possession, and, consequently, each being barred, from exclusively appropriating hence any part of the undivided suit property, vis-a-vis, their exclusive user(s). However, the validity, of, the afore espousal wanes and subsides, for, the hereinafter excepting therewith hence material on record. 4. The defendants in their written statement, contended while placing reliance, upon, the Jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, and, prepared in the year 2009-10, vis-a-vis, land measuring 00-09-83 hectare, comprised in khewat No. 116, khatauni No. 261 and 264, (ii), and, as stands comprised in khasra No. 2554, 2541, 2543, 2544, 2545, and, 2565, as well as in land, measuring 00-04-89 hectare, and, as comprised in khewat No. 167, khatauni No. 265, khasra Nos. 2542, and, 2556, (iii) wherein, one Ramesh Chand is reflected, vis-a-vis, afore khasras, and, in the column of classification thereof, to be in exclusive possession thereof, (iv), and, with all the afore khasra Nos., being reflected therein, to rather carry the classification of gairmumkin, and, rather with a rebutable presumption of truth being assignable thereto, (v) thereupon his holding the befitting capacity, to, proceed, to, after demolition, hence raise, a, new abadi thereon. The verdicts pronounced by both the learned courts below, do not, pronounce (vi) qua any evidence existing, for, rebutting the afore presumption of truth, acquired by the afore jamabandi, (vii) thereupon, the presumption of truth assigned qua the afore reflections borne, vis-a-vis, the afore khasra Nos. does, acquire immense tenacity. Though, the learned trial Judge has proceeded to accept, the contention raised by the learned counsel, for the defendants, (viii) however, the learned first appellate Court granted relief, to, the plaintiffs’, upon, their application, cast under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and, also reversed the relief granted, to, the defendants’ (ix) for the reasons that in case construction, is, permitted to be raised by the defendants, upon, the afore khasra Nos. thereupon, prejudice hence accruing, vis-avis, the plaintiff. The afore reason assigned by the learned first appellate Court, is, in visible detraction, of, the afore reflections’, hence occurring in the jamabandi appertaining, to, the afore khasra Nos., (i) whereupon, the strivings, of, the defendants, to, after apt demolition, hence raise, a, new abadi thereon, is, a befitting endeavor. Furthermore, since obviously, the plaintiffs’ also appear to raise abadi, upon, certain portion(s) of the undivided suit khasra Nos., (ii) and, with no evidence standing placed on record, at this stage, for hence its making aany visible display, that, the defendants’ possession, upon, the afore khasra Nos., being beyond their share, in, the undivided suit property or it comprising the best valuable portion, of, the undivided suit property, (iii) thereupon the afore reflections borne in the afore jamabandi, and, with, graphic depictions’ thereinqua the defendant hence holding exclusivity of possession thereon, hence beget conclusions’, (a) qua, even upon occurrence, of, dismemberment, of, the undivided suit property amongst them, his possession therein hence remaining undisturbed (b) nor their/his settled possession, upon the afore khasra Nos., hence thereat coming under a cloud, (c) nor the defendants, under, the garb of raising construction thereon, can be concluded, to, hence deprive the plaintiffs, of, their valuable rights, in, the undivided suit property. Consequently, all the triplicate facts qua (i) prima facie case existing in favour of the defendant, (ii) balance, of, convenience being loaded in his favour (iii) and, irreparable loss, on refusal, of, relief to him being encumbered upon him, rather being satiated by him. 5. Consequently, all the triplicate facts qua (i) prima facie case existing in favour of the defendant, (ii) balance, of, convenience being loaded in his favour (iii) and, irreparable loss, on refusal, of, relief to him being encumbered upon him, rather being satiated by him. 5. In view of the above observations, there is merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, and, the order rendered by the learned trial Judge is maintained. All pending application also disposed of. 6. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made herein above.