JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25. 08. 2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 136-D/XIII/2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28. 07. 2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 1, Dharamshala, whereby civil Suit No. 81 of 2005 having been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ''plaintiff") for Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction, came to be decreed. 2. Necessary facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction, restraining the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ''defendant'') from interfering in any manner, whatsoever or changing the nature or raising any construction over the suit land, as described in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below, till the time, same is partitioned among the co-sharers, in accordance with law, by metes and bounds. Plaintiff also sought decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to bring the part of khasra No. 848/7, out of suit land to its original position by demolition of any structure, if found raised forcibly during the pendency of the suit with costs. Plaintiff averred before the Court below that suit land is entered in the joint possession of the plaintiff, defendant and other cosharers and same has never been partitioned by metes and bounds by the competent Court of law. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendant has no right to start digging over the land bearing khasra No. 848/7 for raising new construction or changing the nature of any part of the suit land. He further alleged that the defendant, who is a very clever person, with a mala-fide intention had filed a Civil Suit No. 60/2005 qua part of the suit land i. e. Khata No. 18, titled as Munshi Ram versus Anudeep Kumar and Paras Ram. 3. Plaintiff further alleged that the learned trial Court vide order dated 21. 05. 2005 ordered parties to maintain status quo qua khasra No. 855/12, but defendant being head strong person with a mala-fide intention in order to make wrongful gains, forcibly started digging best portion of the land touching the road in khasra No. 848/7 of the suit land for raising new construction. 05. 2005 ordered parties to maintain status quo qua khasra No. 855/12, but defendant being head strong person with a mala-fide intention in order to make wrongful gains, forcibly started digging best portion of the land touching the road in khasra No. 848/7 of the suit land for raising new construction. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff sought decree of Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction, restraining the defendant from raising any construction over the best portion of suit land, especially in khasra No. 848/7. 4. On the other hand, defendant by way of written statement refuted the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff, taking therein preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties and valuation. Defendant while refuting the claim as put forth in the plaint though admitted that the suit land is joint between the parties alongwith other co-sharers, but categorically alleged that land of khasra No. 848/7 qua the share of the plaintiff measuring 0-04-96 hectares has been given to him vide Relinquishment Deed, dated 21. 4. 1992 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and possession of the same has been delivered to the defendant on the date of execution of Relinquishment Deed. He further claimed that he has constructed two pucca shops over it prior to institution of the present suit by the plaintiff and the remaining land of khasra No. 848/7 is being cultivated since 21. 4. 1992. Defendant further alleged that he started construction work of cowshed over khasra No. 848/7 being in its exclusive possession and plaintiff has no right title or interest over it. Apart from above, defendant categorically stated in his written statement that he neither intends to raise any construction over it nor change the nature of the suit land till the suit land is partitioned. While making reference to written statement allegedly filed by the plaintiff in Civil Suit titled as Munshi Ram Vs. Anudeep, defendant stated before the court below that plaintiff has admitted his possession over khasra No. 848/7. While seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff, defendant further claimed that construction of cowshed was already completed over khasra No. 848/7 prior to institution of the present suit. 5. By way of replication, plaintiff while denying the allegations made in the written statement, re-affirmed and reasserted the stand taken in the plaint. 6. While seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff, defendant further claimed that construction of cowshed was already completed over khasra No. 848/7 prior to institution of the present suit. 5. By way of replication, plaintiff while denying the allegations made in the written statement, re-affirmed and reasserted the stand taken in the plaint. 6. On the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned trial Court framed following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act, conduct and acquiescence OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party OPD. 7. Whether the suit is wrongly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction OPD. 8. Whether the defendant is in exclusive owner in possession of khasra No. 848/7, after the Relinquishment Deed executed in the year, 1992 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant OPD. 9. Relief:- 7. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the material adduced on record by the respective parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, whereby the defendant was restrained from changing the nature or raising any construction over the suit land comprising Khata No. 18, Khatauni No. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and khasra Nos. 848/7. 855/12, 212, 304, 327, 328, 329, 1, 210, 303, 325, 326, 6, 14, 211, 319, 214, 840/3, 841/4, 843/4 and 213 plots 21, measuring 2-57-19 hects, as per jamabandi for the year, 1999-2000, situate in mohal Rasehar, Mauza Narwana, Tehsil, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, till the entire suit land is partitioned, in accordance with law, by metes and bounds by the competent Court of law. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, respondent/defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala. Learned District Judge, vide judgment dated 25. 08. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, respondent/defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala. Learned District Judge, vide judgment dated 25. 08. 2007 partly allowed the appeal, as consequence of which, judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court came to be modified partly. Learned District Judge though upheld the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction granted by the learned trial Court, restraining the defendant from changing the nature or raising any construction over the suit land, except the land comprised in Khasra No. 848/7, measuring 0-09-73 hectares, but set-aside the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature and raising any construction over the land comprised in Khasra No. 848/7, however learned District Judge while passing the impugned judgment and decree categorically held that the defendant shall possess the land comprised in Khasra No. 848/7 subject to the right of the other co-sharers at the time of its legal partition. In the aforesaid background, appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein restoration of judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 9. This Court vide order dated 14. 7. 2008, admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court was justified in excluding the Khasra No. 848/7 from the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction when it was evident from the record that the entire suit land including the above mentioned Khasra No. was joint and unpartitioned?. 2. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court was justified in holding the defendant-respondent entitled to the exclusive use of Khasra No. 848/7, when it was not established that the said Khasra No. had been specifically relinquished by the appellant-plaintiff in favour of the defendant-respondent?. 10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and carefully gone through the record made available. 11. Bare perusal of the pleadings and evidence, be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by respective parties, clearly suggest that the suit land is still joint and same has been not yet partitioned among the co-sharers, in accordance with law. 10. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and carefully gone through the record made available. 11. Bare perusal of the pleadings and evidence, be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by respective parties, clearly suggest that the suit land is still joint and same has been not yet partitioned among the co-sharers, in accordance with law. Record further reveals that there are 8 to 10 other co-sharers in the suit land, but save and except plaintiff none has chosen to lay challenge, if any, to the claim of the defendant that he is in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 848/7. Defendant while opposing the claim of the plaintiff, has categorically admitted the factum with regard to joint ownership of the parties, but while claiming his exclusive possession over Khasra No. 848/7, he has placed reliance upon the Relinquishment Deed, dated 21. 4. 1992, whereby allegedly plaintiff had relinquished his share in khasra No. 848/7 in favour of the defendant in lieu of defendant''s share in khasra No. 855/12. True it is that defendant has not been able to prove the aforesaid Relinquishment Deed, in accordance with law, but since photocopy of the same was placed on record, it came to be tendered in evidence as mark ''A''. Defendant also placed on record copy of written statement Ex. D-1 having been filed by the plaintiff in Civil suit No. 60/2005 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and other person namely Anudeep Kumar, to whom plaintiff allegedly sold his share in Khasra No. 855/12, to demonstrate that plaintiff admitted the factum with regard to his possession over Khasra No. 848/7. 12. After having carefully perused the aforesaid documentary evidence adduced on record by the defendant, it is apparent that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 848/7 came to be recorded in the name of the defendant pursuant to Relinquishment Deed mark ''A'', but as has been taken note above, defendant was not able to prove the same, in accordance with law, and as such, both the Courts below while holding defendant in exclusive possession of khasra No. 848/7, categorically returned the finding that the defendant has not been able to prove on record Relinquishment Deed, if any, allegedly executed by the plaintiff. However, this Court finds considerable force in the arguments of Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-defendant that bare perusal of Ex. However, this Court finds considerable force in the arguments of Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-defendant that bare perusal of Ex. D-1 i. e. copy of written statement filed by the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 60/2005, clearly demonstrate admission on the part of the plaintiff with regard to delivery of possession qua khasra No. 848/7 in favour of the defendant. 13. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the appellant, while refuting the aforesaid contention having been made by Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, contended that learned First Appellate Court has miserably failed to appreciate the averments, contained in the written statement filed on behalf of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 60/2005 in its right perspective and as such, has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that there is admission on the part of the plaintiff that defendant was put into specific/exclusive possession of Khasra No. 848/7, but this Court after having carefully perused the other evidence available on record, is not inclined to agree with the aforesaid contention put forth by Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the plaintiff because if deposition made by PW-1 is examined/analyzed, it clearly suggests that he has not only admitted the factum with regard to his filing of written statement in Civil Suit No. 60/2005, wherein he categorically admitted the defendant to be in exclusive possession of the suit land, but he in his statement also admitted the factum with regard to family arrangement or family partition, whereby the defendant was put into possession of khasra No. 848/7. It has categorically come in his statement that in lieu of khasra No. 855/12, which he subsequently sold to a person namely Anudeep Kumar, the land comprising khasra No. 848/7 was given to defendant in a family arrangement. But as has been taken note above, learned courts below have not placed reliance upon the family arrangement allegedly arrived inter-se the parties because of non production of Relinquishment Deed by defendant in support of his claim. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the plaintiff was unable to dispute that if land in question was joint inter se the parties and they were not in possession qua specific portion of the land, where was the occasion for the plaintiff to sell his share in khasra No. 855/12 to Sh. Anudeep Kumar. 14. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the plaintiff was unable to dispute that if land in question was joint inter se the parties and they were not in possession qua specific portion of the land, where was the occasion for the plaintiff to sell his share in khasra No. 855/12 to Sh. Anudeep Kumar. 14. Apart from above, careful perusal of the statement having been made by PW-1, further suggests that the plaintiff categorically admitted that the land in khasra No. 855/12, which he subsequently sold to Anudeep Kumar, was in his possession, whereas other land upon which defendant had constructed two shops was in the possession of defendant. It is an admitted case of the parties, rather has been categorically admitted by the plaintiff that defendant had raised construction of two shops over khasra No. 848/7, meaning thereby defendant was in possession over khasra No. 848/7 prior to institution of the suit. Though, by way of instant suit plaintiff made an attempt to prove on record that during the pendency of the present suit, defendant raised construction of cowshed (Ghural), but there is no evidence available to this effect, rather to the contrary defendant has successfully proved on record that he had raised construction of cowshed (Ghural) over the suit land prior to institution of the suit. Learned trial Court despite having found defendant in possession of the suit land proceeded to restrain the defendant from raising any construction over the suit land comprising in khata No. 18, wherein khasra No. 848/7 is also situated. But as has been noticed above, defendant has successfully proved on record his possession over khasra No. 848/7 and as such, learned District Judge, while modifying decree of permanent prohibitory injunction granted by the learned trial Court held him entitled to raise construction over the suit land i. e khasra No. 848/7, measuring 0-09-73 hectares, which is in exclusive possession of the defendant 15. At this stage, Mr. Surinder Saklani, leaned counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff, contended that total area of khasra No. 848/7 is 2 kanals 10 marlas and as such, learned court below has erred in allowing the defendant to raise construction over and above shops and cowshed already constructed by the defendant. At this stage, Mr. Surinder Saklani, leaned counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff, contended that total area of khasra No. 848/7 is 2 kanals 10 marlas and as such, learned court below has erred in allowing the defendant to raise construction over and above shops and cowshed already constructed by the defendant. Aforesaid argument is not tenable because the defendant in his written statement has categorically stated that he does not intend to raise any construction over the suit land till the time it is partitioned. Moreover, learned District Judge has categorically held that defendant shall possess the land comprised in khasra No. 848/7 subject to the right of the other co-sharers at the time of legal partition, meaning thereby plaintiff alongwith other co-sharers shall have right to raise his claim qua khasra No. 848/7 subject to right of other co-sharers including defendant in the event of partition of aforesaid suit land in future. Since, there is ample evidence on record to prove the possession of the defendant over khasra No. 848/7, learned first appellate Court rightly modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby it had restrained the defendant from changing the nature or raising any construction over the suit land. As has been noticed above, none of the court has placed reliance upon the Relinquishment Deed while holding the defendant in exclusive possession of khasra No. 848/7, rather court below drawing strength from the statement given by the plaintiff himself, has come to conclusion that defendant is in exclusive possession of khasra No. 848/7. The Substantial questions of law are decided accordingly. 16. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.