JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff instituted a suit, claiming therein, pronouncement, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, in respect of the suit land AND vis-a-vis the defendants. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants being aggrieved therefrom, instituted an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, whereupon, it reversed the judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherein, reversal of the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, is strived. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land comprising in Khata Khatauni No. 156/243, total measuring 63.13 bighas, including the land comprising in khasra No.565/84, 567/84, 570/458/86, 568/456/85 and 591/92 min, measuring 1.1, 10.14, 1.0, 2.2 and 19.15 bighas respectively, situate in mauza Gangoowala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendant has his separate land which was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of defendant and his two other sons, who are residing separately. The defendant is a very quarrelsome person and is trying to occupy the suit land forcibly. The plaintiff being an old person of 80 years of age cannot resist the illegal acts of the defendant. As such, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering or occupying the suit land. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections of maintainability and collusion. The defendant has pleaded that 12-13 years ago, the plaintiff made a family settlement of his property in order to bring peace and cordial relations between the family members and in family settlement, he has given land comprised in khasra No.591/92/1, measuring 7 bighas, khasra No.568/456/85/1, measuring 17 biswas and Khasra No. 567/84/1 measuring 7.11 bighas, total land measuring 15.8 bighas and he is in physical possession of the same. That apart, the defendant's case is that he was given one room for residence, when he was separated by the plaintiff. That apart, the defendant's case is that he was given one room for residence, when he was separated by the plaintiff. Apart from the aforesaid land, the plaintiff also purchased 15 bigha of land from the income of the ancestral land and the same was purchased in the name of defendant, Harjeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh about 20- 25 years back. Defendant's further case is that on account of the separation from the family on account of family settlement, he on getting the land in settlement made improvements on the same and about three years back, he built a pucca house on the land allotted to him and also constructed a boundary wall. His further case is that the suit land is joint Hindu family coparcenary property of plaintiff, defendant and his two brothers. Waryam Singh, father of the plaintiff was the son of Subha. Subha had five sons, namely, Jagat Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Waryam Singh, Ran Singh, Mehar Singh and Jota Singh. Defendant's further case is that his grand father Waryam Singh, pre-deceased his father Subha. After the death of Subha, his estate qua the estate of father of plaintiff, was inherited by the plaintiff and his two brothers, being the sons of Waryam Singh vide mutation No.271, dated 11.6.1955. Apart from the land inherited by the plaintiff from his grand father Subha, he had also inherited the land from his father Shri Waryam Singh round about and prior to 1950. Thus, the entire land in the hand of the plaintiff is ancestral coparcenary property and defendant being the member of joint Hindu family as well as being coparcener has a right by birth which right had been duly admitted and accepted by the plaintiff, therefore, according to the defendant, the plaintiff effected the family settlement and gave land measuring 15.8. bighas to him. Apart from that, the plaintiff has also purchased 15 bighas of land which was purchased by him in the name of defendant, Harjeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh from joint family income as well as income from ancestral land, 20-25 years back. 4. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/respondent wherein, the plaintiff 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. 4. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/respondent wherein, the plaintiff 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 defendant is interfering in the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit property is coparcenary property, if so, its effect? OPD. 5. Whether in a family settlement, defendant was allotted land measuring 15.8 bighas, if so, its effect? OPD. 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein qua relief, of, permanent prohibitory injunction. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/respondent herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiff/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 07.03.2006, 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 questions of law:- 1. Whether there can be a family settlement settling a portion of the suit property in favour of the defendant without the consent of all persons having existing or future interest in the property to be settled? 2. Whether the findings of the learned District Judge are result of misinterpretation and misconstruction of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record ad ignored the admissible evidence, which if considered would have resulted in opposite findings? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The plaintiff's suit, for, rendition of a decree, of permanent prohibitory injunction vis-a-vis suit land, comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 156/243 min bearing Khasra Nos. 565/84, 567/84, 570/458/85, 568/456/85 and 591/22 min, respectively measuring 1-1, 10-14, 1-0, 2-2 and 19-15 hence stood decreed by the learned trial Court. However, the suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant. The plaintiff's suit, for, rendition of a decree, of permanent prohibitory injunction vis-a-vis suit land, comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 156/243 min bearing Khasra Nos. 565/84, 567/84, 570/458/85, 568/456/85 and 591/22 min, respectively measuring 1-1, 10-14, 1-0, 2-2 and 19-15 hence stood decreed by the learned trial Court. However, the suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant. The resistance posed by the defendant vis-a-vis the plaintiff's suit, was embedded in (a) of the entire suit being ancestral coparcenary property, given its, in an unbroken chain, from, his immediately/preceding two ancestors, hence standing transmitted vis-a-vis the plaintiff, (b) till occurrence of dismemberment of the joint estate, the plaintiff being barred, to claim exclusivity of possession, of any portion of the suit khasra numbers nor his being entitled to seek, qua them, any decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, (c) rather the defendant, espoused in his written statement, that in pursuance to, a family settlement recorded inter se the parties at contest, the lands comprised in Khasra No.591/92/1, measuring 7 bighas, Khasra No.568/456/85/1, measuring 17 biswas and Khasra No.567/84/1,measuring 7-11 bighas, total measuring 15-8 bighas, being delivered to him, factum whereof being denoted in a tatima prepared by the Patwari besides his raising a residential house thereon AND constructing a boundary wall, as well as, a khurali about three feet high and twenty five to thirty feet in width and length, for his tethering cattle and for storing fodder. 9. Preceding the attestation of mutations vis-a-vis the suit land, mutations whereof are borne respectively in Ex. DC, Ex. DD, Ex. DF and Ex. DE, the suit khasra numbers, were, held as co-owners by Waryam Singh and Subha. Waryam Singh, is, the directly preceding predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiff AND is the grandfather of the defendant. 9. Preceding the attestation of mutations vis-a-vis the suit land, mutations whereof are borne respectively in Ex. DC, Ex. DD, Ex. DF and Ex. DE, the suit khasra numbers, were, held as co-owners by Waryam Singh and Subha. Waryam Singh, is, the directly preceding predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiff AND is the grandfather of the defendant. Hence, the defendant's propagations that all the suit khasra numbers, stood transmitted, in an unbroken line, from, Subha and Waryam Singh, upto Tara Singh, the latter being the last male holder of the suit property, thereupon rendered him incumbent to place on record reliable, cogent and best documentary evidence, making vivid disclosure, of (i) the suit khasra numbers denoted in the plaint, standing also specifically reflected in the apposite mutations, as stood attested in contemporaneity, with the openings of succession vis-a-vis the estates of the predecessor(s)- in-interest, of the parties at contest, (ii) whereupon, this Court would be enabled, to efficaciously, make apposite collations therewith, besides form a firm conclusion qua apposite analogitys thereof, significantly, vis-a-vis suit khasra number(s), (iii) also concomitantly this Court would be constrained, to firmly conclude that the apposite best documentary evidence, hence, unfolding, of, the suit khasra numbers, being, in an unbroken chain held by Waryam Singh and Subha, besides therefrom theirs uninterruptedly standing transmitted, upto, the third generation, generation whereof is constituted by the plaintiff, (ii) thereupon, the suit property partaking the trait and character of ancestral property, hence disabling the plaintiff, to till occurrence of dismemberment, of the joint holdings, by metes and bounds, to, seek exclusivity of possession of any portion, of the joint holdings also disabling him, to seek qua it, any decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. A closest and circumspect reading of the evidence on record comprised in the best documentary evidence, for, hence resting the aforesaid trite factum, stands, comprised in the aforesaid apposite mutations attested vis-a-vis the suit khasra numbers, rather unveils, of it being both vague and imprecise, (iv) inasmuch as therein, though occur reflections qua the areas of lands falling to the shares of the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the plaintiff, (v) yet therein the apt khasra numbers remain unreflected, (vi) in absence of denotations thereof, in the apposite orders attesting mutations, orders whereof stood attested during the life times of the respective predecessor(s)-in- interest of the plaintiff, it is extremely hazardous, to form any conclusion, (vii) of, therein, hence, occurring any palpable and firm analogity inter se the lands in respect whereof mutations stood attested respectively, at stages, whereat, the apposite estates hence opened for succession nor hence, it is possible to firmly conclude, of, land measuring 63-13 bighas, in its entirety, dons, the trait and character, of ancestral coparcenary property. 10. Even otherwise, a perusal of jamabandi borne in Ex. PA rather marks the factum of the plaintiff being recorded therein, to be owner in possession of 63- 13 bighas of land, (i) whereas, the dimensions of lands in respects whereof mutations of inheritance, stood attested, qua the apposite predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff, on theirs' respective demises AND thereafter vis-a-vis the plaintiff, stands computed at 37 bighas, (ii) whereas, the suit land in its entirety measures 63-13 bighas. (iii) Naturally, hence, besides assumingly, if an area measuring 37 bighas, does partake, the trait and colour of ancestral property, (iv) AND yet as aforestated, given, even if the order attesting mutations in respect thereto, omit to delineate the specific khasra numbers, in respect whereof they stood recorded, (v) nonetheless merely thereupon, the validity of the plaintiff's claim for rendition, of, a decree of injunction, may not, be a bewildering task, significantly, when an allusion to the respective pleadings, cast, respectively by the contesting parties, may ultimately, aid, this Court in clinching the substratum of the contentious claims, also reiteratedly when it stands embedded therein. 11. 11. An allusion vis-a-vis of the contention raised, by the defendant, in his written statement brings forth, the imminent factum, of, existence therein, of, a precise espousal, with respect to possession, of khasra numbers 591/92/1, measuring 7 bighas, 568/456/85/1, measuring 17 biswas, 467/84/1 measuring 7-11 bighas, total measuring 15-8 bighas, being hence standing delivered to him, in pursuance to a family settlement, which occurred inter se the purported joint owners. Obviously, the validity of the aforesaid espousal, alone is to be tested, (i) for hence determining qua in respect of the aforesaid khasra numbers, of, the plaintiff holding any right, to seek a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, (ii) or contrarily assumingly, if, the aforesaid khasra numbers, may don, the character and trait, of ancestral coparcenary property, whereupon, they may also be amenable, to recording of a family settlement inter se the joint owners concerned, (iii) besides, if, affirmative findings thereon vis-a-vis the defendants are rendered, thereupon, it is to be concomitantly fathomed, qua the validity, of, the defendant's claims, to, deprive the plaintiff, from, seeking the relief as canvassed by him, in the plaint. Tritely with the defendant's resistance to the plaintiff's suit, being restricted vis-a-vis the khasra numbers elucidated in the written statement, thereupon, vis-a-vis them alone, validities thereof is to be clinched. 12. Before proceeding to rest the aforesaid controversy, it is of utmost relevance, to allude to the reverence, meted by the learned First Appellate Court, to, the admissions made by the plaintiff AND his witnesses vis-a-vis the suit khasra numbers, hence, donning the trait and character of ancestral coparcenary property, (i) despite when, for the aforesaid reasons, the non reflections, of suit khasra numbers, in the respectively recorded orders of mutation(s), may present a hazardous task, for, this Court to firmly conclude, qua existence, of, imminent analogity inter se the suit khasra numbers vis-a-vis the ones reflected, in the respectively recorded orders of mutation, wherefrom, a further difficulty would arise, for, firmly concluding, of, the suit land, hence, being ancestral coparcenary property. The admissions relied, upon, by the learned First Appellate Court, for, concluding, of, all the suit khasra numbers, hence donning, the trait and colour of ancestral coparcenary property, is erroneously omnibusly drawn, it remaining wholly unmindful qua only an area of 37 bighas of land, standing received, by the plaintiff, under the apposite orders, of, mutations, (i) whereas, the total land comprised, in the suit khasra numbers, is comprised in an area of 63-13 bighas, (ii) also it has erupted, from gross discardings, by the learned First Appellate Court, of an averment, occurring in the paragraph No.2, of the plaint, of the plaintiff, out of the joint funds of the family, purchasing land, in the name of defendant and his two other sons. Thereupon, the effect of the admissions, if any, was confined only vis-a-vis the pleadings cast in paragraph No.2, of the plaint and was not extendable, to the entire land, borne in all khasra numbers nor it was appropriate for the learned First Appellate Court, to conclude that the propagation of the defendant, rather fell, within an area of 37 bighas. More so, when for the reasons aforestated, lack of ascription in the relevant orders of mutations, of specific khasra numbers, in respect whereof, the apposite mutations of inheritance stood attested, rather forbid any firm conclusion, as untenably drawn by the learned First Appellate Court. (iii) Moreover, when the trite resistance aforesaid, propagated by the defendant, in his written statement alone hence warrants rendition of an apt verdict thereon. 13. Be that as it may, nowat, while excluding the admissions made by the plaintiff and his witnesses rather confining, them to the averments made in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, thereupon, for, the purported family settlement, for its obviously securing validity, was, enjoined, to, with specificity delineate therein, those khasra numbers, in respect whereof it stood executed, (i) for hence delivery of possession of land, espoused by the defendant, in his written statement, being concomitantly construable to be in consonance thereto, whereupon, it would acquire validity and also would ultimately, non suit the plaintiff. The defendant, for proving his contention, was enjoined, to adduce firm evidence, comprised in adduction into evidence, of, the apposite tatima, prepared by the Patwari concerned besides its bearing consonance with his espousals occurring in paragraph No. 4, of his preliminary objections, embodied in his Written Statement, apposite averment whereof reads as under:- “4.........In the family settlement, the defendant was given land of Khasra No.591/92/1, measuring 7 bighas, land of khasra NO.568/456/85/1, measuring 17 biswas and land of khasra No.567/84/1, measuring 7-11 bighas, i.e. total land measuring 15-8 bighas, situated in mauza Gangu Wala, Jamniwala. The location of the land of the defendant has been shown in the tatima prepared by the patwari on 27.06.2003.....” However, the tatima prepared by the Patwari concerned as comprised in Ex, DG, omits to bear out, the espousal aforestated, occurring in paragraph No.4, of the preliminary objections, existing in the written statement, furnished to the plaint, by the defendant. The obvious consequence thereof, is that the stakings of claims by the defendant vis-a-vis the khasra numbers enumerated in paragraph No.4 of the preliminary objections, existing in the written statement, hence, remaining uncorroborated, besides remained abysmally unproven. In sequel, the lands mentioned therein, even if assumingly alongwith other suit khasra numbers, don, the mantle and character of ancestral coparcenary property, yet resistances for rendition of a decree, in respect thereto, cannot come to be vindicated by this Court, rather with the jamabandi apposite to the suit land, conveying, of, the plaintiff being owner in possession of the suit land, is rather to be imputed truth besides conclusivity. In sequel thereto, it has to be held that the plaintiff, is owner in possession of the suit khasra numbers, hence, he is entitled, to, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. However, it is clarified that if desired, the co-owners are, in accordance with law, entitled to seek, dismemberment, of the ancestral coparcenary property, by metes and bounds. 10. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, both the substantial questions are answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and against the defendant/respondent. 11. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is Allowed. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, both the substantial questions are answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and against the defendant/respondent. 11. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is Allowed. In sequel, the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.50-CA/13 of 2004 is set aside, whereas, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Civil Suit No.88/1 of 2003 is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.