JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Civil Appeal No.54-CA/13 of 1999, dated 12.3.2012, vide which, the learned lower Appellate Court, has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the then learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, in Civil Suit No.7/1 of 1998, dated 2.8.1999. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) maintained a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants’) alleging that plaintiff is co-owner in exclusive possession of land comprised in Khata No.8, Khatauni No.14, Khasra No.968 and 972, measuring 120-18 square meters and in joint use and occupation of landed property, comprised in Khata No.8, Khatauni No.11, Khasra No.938, 973 to 980, 1030 and 958, joint stairs to roof, 961 ‘dehleej/deodi’ entrance room, 971 joint path/way measuring 54-37 square meters, situated at Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan, District Sirmaur, (H.P) (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’). It is further averred that earlier her father and thereafter plaintiff holds and enjoys a water connection issued by the HP PWD (I & PH) Department, Nahan, which water connection bearing account No.263/568, which goes to her exclusively possessed house, since more than 40 years. The main entry to the house of co-sharers is through a ‘deodi/dehleez’ outside of which, there is engraved the name of house ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’, situated in Khasra No.961 and is attached with a joint path to the entire house, comprised in Khasra No.971 and there are joint stairs to the roof in Khasra No.958 and are in existence since more than 40 years and all co-sharers have been enjoying them considering their utility and nature. The defendants have got no right, title or interest to change the nature of the property left for joint use of the other co-sharers or to act or commit deeds to render the other co-owners helpless to enjoy their exclusive properties attached with joint properties. The defendants, who alleged themselves to be tenant of Raja Ram, as co-owner, put obstructions in joint use of the suit property by the plaintiff. The defendants, who alleged themselves to be tenant of Raja Ram, as co-owner, put obstructions in joint use of the suit property by the plaintiff. It is also averred that there has been a water connection bearing No.6263/568, in the name of plaintiff, but the defendants allegedly removed the meter and illegally connected their pipe with water connection of the plaintiff. In the month of January, 1998, defendants have raised a wall and have destroyed the natural beauty of the house. The construction had been made on ‘dehleez’ and the ultimate ulterior motive of the defendants is to grab the same. The defendants fixed a tin gate in the common stairs in the month of January, 1998, just to exclude other co-owners from its use. The plaintiff alongwith co-owners have asked the defendants several times to desist from indulging in such illegal acts and to restore the property to its original shape, but in vain. 3. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted and contested by the defendants by filing written statement, wherein preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, cause of action and suit is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the suit property was initially joint between the parties, but the same has been partitioned, vide mutation No.93, whereas the suit land was kept in joint, but it is asserted that the plaintiff had a separate passage for ingress and egress to the portion allotted to her and she had never been using the suit land, as a joint owner and the same has been in exclusive use of the defendants. Further, Raja Ram, one of the co-owners has already sold his 1/3rd share in the suit property known as ‘Bhargwa Bhawan’ to defendant No.2-Siri Niwas and the water connection is being used not only by the parties, but the same is being used by the tenants also. Prior to purchase, the defendants were tenants in other portion. The defendants have every right to use the path, which is in dispute, but the defendants have also entitled to use the other path. 4. From the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues : “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. 4. From the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues : “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD. 4. Whether Raja Ram has executed an agreement dated 4.3.1998 in favour of defendant as alleged, it so its effect? OPD. 4 (A) Whether Raja Ram has executed a sale deed in respect of his entire 1/3rd share in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 as alleged, if so its effect ?OPD. 4(B) Whether the sale deed is based upon fraud as alleged? OPD. 5. Relief.” 5. The learned trial Court after deciding Issues No.1 in affirmative, Issue Nos.2, 3 in negative, Issue No.4, 4A in affirmative, Issue No.4B in negative, decreed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved thereby the defendants maintained first appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, assailing the findings of learned Court below being against the law and without appreciating the evidence and pleading of the parties to its true perspective. The learned lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Court below. Now, the appellant has maintained the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted for hearing on 17.7.2014 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?” 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence to its true perspective and has given the findings, which are contrary to law and so, the appeal may be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently argued that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court is as per law and after appreciating the facts, which have come on record to its true perspective. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 9. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 9. At the very outset, I would like to discuss the evidence, which is led by the parties. Plaintiff, Smt. Asha, while appearing in the witness box, as PW-1, deposed that she owns her exclusive property measuring 120 and 191 square metres and joint property to the extent of 55 metres in the suit property. There is one ‘ dehleez’ followed by one ‘gali’ gets bifurcated into two parts, one part leads to the property at Govind Garh Mohalla and second towards Geeta Bhawan. There is one joint staircase for all co-sharers leads to the roof of her property. She has further stated that defendants have affixed one tin gate in the said joint staircase, which is causing hindrance to them to lead freely to their respective roofs. Defendants though keep ‘deodi’ open throughout day, but close it down at night. It also gets obstructed by the defendants by keeping heap of ‘bajri’, sand, bricks and bags of sugarcane etc. She has further deposed that defendants have constructed one wall 3’ in length and ¾’ in height on one side of the roof of ‘deodi’ affixed with windows with an intention to make illegal possession, though they have not been authorized to do so by any of the co-owners. She has further stated that there was one water meter in the name of her father Ram Chander in the house, which was since stolen in the year 1996. There was also one water connection pipe starting from Delhi Gate upto her exclusive property meant for its use by her sister Sunita and the same was installed in their premises. Defendants have without her consent and that of her sister got one water connection pipe installed for themselves without any right to do so. She has also complained to the Police, but no action was taken. One wall was constructed by the defendant in January, 1998 and there was no such wall, when she visited her property in October, 1997. There were brick walls all around on the roofs, but now there is not even a single brick wall, which has since been damaged by the defendants in her absence. Defendants in the year 1995-96, without her consent also damaged the drain of her house. There were brick walls all around on the roofs, but now there is not even a single brick wall, which has since been damaged by the defendants in her absence. Defendants in the year 1995-96, without her consent also damaged the drain of her house. She has further stated that the door raised by the defendants be also removed and defendants be directed to remove the water pipe from her line and also to keep the dog in check. Though, in cross-examination, it is admitted that the house is connected with two paths, but voluntarily stated that the back path is meant for domestic servants etc. The other witness examined by the plaintiff, PW-2, Mohammed Yakub, deposed that building of the suit property is known as ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’. He has further stated that one leads to the portion of Asha Devi through the gate of ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’ and one ‘gali’ . Defendants reside in the same building just adjoining to the gate of ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’. There is also one joint staircase for leading to the roofs of the portion of all cosharers in the suit property. He has further stated that there is one brick wall of the size of 5/6’ in length and 1 ½ ‘-3’ in height and 9’ in girth on the roof of ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’. There was earlier no obstruction to go to the stairs, but now one tin gate has been affixed, which is sometime kept open and sometimes closed. He has further stated that the brick wall on the roof of ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’ has since been constructed by the defendant Jai Parkash and his brother. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his house is at a distance of 1/½ kilometer from that of the plaintiff, but voluntarily stated that his shop was at Bada Chowk. He has denied that there are two paths for going to ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’ and voluntarily stated that the other path touches Geeta Bhawan. There are many co-sharers in ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’, but he has shown his ignorance about any factum of partition among all those co-sharers. He has admitted that Raja Ram, is also one of the co-sharers in the suit property, but he has shown his ignorance, as to whether he has sold his entire share to defendant No.2. There are many co-sharers in ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’, but he has shown his ignorance about any factum of partition among all those co-sharers. He has admitted that Raja Ram, is also one of the co-sharers in the suit property, but he has shown his ignorance, as to whether he has sold his entire share to defendant No.2. He has shown his ignorance as to whether both the paths are meant for going to Geeta Bhawan and ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’ and has further shown his ignorance as to whether Asha Devi, has no concern whatsoever with the path leading to ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’. PW-3 K.K. Kaushik, husband of the plaintiff, Smt. Asha Devi (PW-1), deposed that there are three other co-sharers in the suit property of ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’ and their portions are separate. However, there is one joint property for the use of said ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’ and it is being used by all co-sharers. There is a gate followed by ‘ dehleez’ and thereafter one path and there are 10/15 stairs for going to upper portion of the building and all cosharers use the said stairs/path for going to their respective roofs. Defendants have constructed one brick wall of the size of 5’ in height and 8-9’ in length on ‘deodi’, which has spoiled the beauty and nature of entire ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’ building, since no co-sharers is authorized to do any such type of construction. In rebuttal, PW-1, Smt. Asha Devi, while appearing in the witness box as PW-4, deposed that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants is a fraudulent document. PW-5, Savitri Devi, deposed that she used the path adjoining to the Science College for going to ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’. There is first one ‘deodi’ and staircase and the said path is generally used for all occasions without any obstruction right from the very beginning. She has further deposed that the path from the back is only meant for domestic servants etc. In her cross-examination, she has denied that the path stated to be her for servants, as in fact a path, which is being used by Asha Devi. She has admitted that this is a ‘pucca’ path and leads to the house of Asha Devi and voluntarily stated that it might be around 1 ½’ pitched with ‘chakkas’ and there is no obstruction for passing of anyone through this path. She has admitted that this is a ‘pucca’ path and leads to the house of Asha Devi and voluntarily stated that it might be around 1 ½’ pitched with ‘chakkas’ and there is no obstruction for passing of anyone through this path. To controvert this evidence, defendant examined Prem Lata, as DW-1, Registration Clerk, who has stated that Ex.D1, copy of sale deed, dated 16.4.1998 is correct, as per original deed No.97. DW-2, Jai Parkash, deposed that he alongwith his brother used to be tenants of the disputed property for the last 24/25 years. They were earlier tenants of Kasturi Devi, who was mother of Asha Devi and Sundri Devi and thereafter, they became tenant of Raja Ram since the said property was partitioned between these co-owners. They purchased the property in question for sale consideration of Rs. 95,000/- and the consideration amount was well paid before the execution of sale deed. Power of Attorney was executed by Raja Ram for execution of the sale deed in his favour, as he was too weak to walk. There are many other tenants in the said building. He has further deposed that there is a path from the shop of Vinod Kumar to the house of plaintiff and it is being used right from the beginning by Asha Devi and Sundri Devi. The big articles such as Sofa set, Scooter etc. can be passed only through the said path. He does not use such path since the plaintiff does not allow to him. He has further stated that they only close the doors from inside just to check entry of stray animals and unwanted persons in the night after 9:00 pm. He is having exclusive rights alongwith the staircase, which fall in his property and the plaintiff and his sister have no right at all to make any use of the staircase. He has further stated that the plaintiff sold the land to Satvir Singh and has given him path through ‘gali’ of Vinod Kumar, which is shown in sale deed No.97, dated 16.4.1998. DW-3, Sanjay Kaushik, prepared site plan Ex.DW3/A, under his handwriting and signatures. He has further stated that the plaintiff sold the land to Satvir Singh and has given him path through ‘gali’ of Vinod Kumar, which is shown in sale deed No.97, dated 16.4.1998. DW-3, Sanjay Kaushik, prepared site plan Ex.DW3/A, under his handwriting and signatures. He has also stated that the path, which leads to the house of Asha Devi, is 8’ in width and width of the path at point ‘A’ in the site plan Ex.DW3/A. He has also stated that the site plan attached with the sale deed is also prepared by him, which was since corrected, but no correction was made in Ex.DW3/A. DW-7, Jamna Parshad, deposed that there is one path adjoining to the shop of Antu, which is normally being used by Asha Devi as well as by Sundri Devi. He never happened to use the main path of ‘BHARGAW BHAWAN’ and normally it is the path adjoining to the shop of Antu, which was used by him. He has also stated that the defendants have purchased the property of Raja Ram. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there is only one staircase, which leads to the roof of the building and all tenants used to make use of it. As far as, staircase is concerned, it is only one inexistence on the spot, which leads to the roofs of the portions of other co-sharers and so, its use also cannot be denied to the plaintiff by the defendants by affixing any temporarily blockade in the form of tin door. Perusal of the sale deed executed inter se Smt. Illa Pandey and Smt. Asha, demonstrates the fact that Smt. Illa Pandey, having acquired all right, title and interest qua right of air, light, path/passage, drainage etc. in her share, in the joint suit property, as purchased by her from Smt. Asha Devi. Copy of Missal Hakiyat Ex.PB, shows that Khasra No.958, 961 and 971, reflected to be shown as ‘Gair Mumkin Siriyan’ (stairs), ‘Gair Mumkin Dehleez’ and ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’. 10. in her share, in the joint suit property, as purchased by her from Smt. Asha Devi. Copy of Missal Hakiyat Ex.PB, shows that Khasra No.958, 961 and 971, reflected to be shown as ‘Gair Mumkin Siriyan’ (stairs), ‘Gair Mumkin Dehleez’ and ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’. 10. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff to the extent of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction and the dismissal of appeal and cross objection passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is the result of proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, which have come on record to its true perspective and law has been correctly applied, so substantial question of law, as framed by this Court is decided accordingly. 11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is without merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.