JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, stands, directed by the aggrieved plaintiff, who has suffered reversal, of the verdict, decreeing his suit, hence, pronounced, by the learned trial Court, rather by the First Appellate Court, wherethrough, the plaintiffs' suit for rendition of, a, decree of injunction, for, hence restraining the defendant, from, raising construction of Gharat, over suit khasra No. 124, khata khatuani No. 9/20 min, measuring 4.13 bighas, and, also for restraining him, for, taking the water channel upon khasra No. 125, khata khatauni No. 5/12 min, measuring 0.14 bighas, situated in mauza Pirgari, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., rather stands dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for injunction alleging there he is co-owner in possession of land comprised in khasra No. 125, measuring 0.14 biswas, situated at village Pirgari, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. along with khasra No. 124, measuring 4 bighas 13 biswas. A Gharat was constructed over khasra No. 270/126, which was owned and run by Prem Singh, father of defendant, who died about 16 years back. No patta was granted in favour of any person including the defendant and the Gharat is not functioning. The defendant cannot operate the Gharat without seeking prior permission of the Government of H.P. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant in connivance with the Revenue Officials is trying to raise the construction of Gharat over the land comprised in khasra No. 124 and also trying to carry the water through khasra No. 125 without any locus standi. The Gharat according to the plaintiff is in khasra No.270/126 and the defendant is at liberty to renovate the same. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendant has started the work on 16.9.2001 by carrying the water through khasra No. 125 and if the defendant is not restrained from raising the construction of Gharat or taking the water through khasra No. 125, the plaintiff shall be ruined. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has no right on khasra No.124 and thus, ye prayed for the relief. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, taking certain preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable in the present form, that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, taking certain preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable in the present form, that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. On merits, the defendant has denied that the plaintiff is co-owner over khasra No. 124, but according to him he is also co-owner over khasra No. 124/1 measuring 1 biswa. The defendant has admitted that there is a Gharat over khasra No.270/126, which is owned and possessed by the defendant since the time of his father who was running the same without any hindrance. He has denied that the Gharat was ceased to operate after the death of his father Sh. Prem Singh. There is no question of liquidating the Gharat. He is not taking any water through khasra No.125. According to the plaintiff there is khala of village Kathla from where the water is coming for the Gharat. He has denied the remaining contents of the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of 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 to the relief of injunction, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 4. Whether no enforceable cause of action accrued to plaintiff to file the present suit? 5. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the defendant/ respondent herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed, the, appeal, and, set aside the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Obviously, through the instant Regular Second Appeal, cast, before this Court, by the plaintiff, he seeks reversal of the pronouncement, made, against him, by the learned first Appellate Court. 6. Obviously, through the instant Regular Second Appeal, cast, before this Court, by the plaintiff, he seeks reversal of the pronouncement, made, against him, by the learned first Appellate Court. Even though, upon, the instant appeal coming up for admission, on 7.5.2004, this Court, had, admitted the appeal, instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered, by the learned first Appellate Court, however, the substantial questions of law are not borne in the grounds of appeal, rather, are appended therewith, hence substantial questions of law occurring at page No.7, of the paper book, are formulated for making an adjudication thereon:- 1. Whether the learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied the pleadings of defendant in the form of written statement, oral and documentary evidence on record in reversing the judgment, decree dated 1.9.2003, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Nahan? 2. Whether the defendant, even if he is a co-owner of land comprised in khasra Nos. 124, 125 along with the plaintiff, has a right to construct Gharat and carry water through channel on the suit land without the approval, consent of the plaintiff and in such situation whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction as prayed? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 7. The jamabandi, appertaining to the suit khasra Nos., as borne in Ext. PW-1/A, makes a candid graphic echoings qua khasra No. 125, carrying therein, the, classification, of, 'banjar kadim'. Also, a, reading of Ext. PW1/B, the jamabandi, appertaining to khasra No. 125, and, pertaining to the year 1996-97, discloses, qua in, the, classification column thereof, it, carrying reflection, vis-a-vis, the afore khasra number, hence carrying, the, description, of, 'nakabil jangal jhadi'. Consequently, the afore reflections, cast, in the afore exhibits, per-se cannot carry forward the plaintiff's espousal qua, upon, the afore khasra number, hence, any Gharat existing, nor he can make any valid espousal, before this Court qua, for, his, hence making operational the afore gharat, his being rather, enabled to, supply water thereupto, hence from, a, channel existing on khasra No. 125. In aftermath, reiteratedly, the afore reflections, as, borne in Ext. PW-1/A, and, as borne in Ext. In aftermath, reiteratedly, the afore reflections, as, borne in Ext. PW-1/A, and, as borne in Ext. PW-1/B, and, where to which, a presumption of truth, is, enjoyed, and, when no best documentary evidence, unfolding qua the afore reflections, as, borne therein, hence remaining unpreceded, rather by any valid order, for, hence belying their efficacy(ies), (i) thereupon, oral evidence, if any, adduced by the plaintiff, for, dislodging the afore presumption of truth, carried by the afore description borne therein, is, inefficacious and, rather, the, afore reflections carry apt conclusivities. The further sequel thereof, is, that the plaintiff being estopped to claim rendition, of, the espoused decree. However, the learned trial court in gross derogation of the afore conclusivity, rather proceeded to obviously, hence, rendered, a, legally infirm, and, frail decree, of, injunction, against, the aggrieved defendant, respondent herein. 8. Be that as it may, the verdict recorded against the defendant/respondent, is, also ingrained rather deep perverse vice, of, the learned trial court below, proceeding to beyond, the, scope, and, domain, of, pleadings, cast, in the plaint, (i) wherein the plaintiff in apt paragraph thereof, had, contended qua the existence, a, Gharat earlier upon khasra No. 270/126, (ii) and, that though, during the life time of, the, predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendant, hence, it being in operation, yet, on his demise, the Gharat, existing upon the afore khasra number, rather, ceasing to operate, and, that any endevour of the defendant, to operate, the Gharat, without his seeking any permission, in respect thereto, from the Government, hence being impermissible, (iii) and, thereupon, the learned trial Judge had granted the espoused relief, purportedly, upon, the defendant attempting to bring into operation the Gharat, purportedly existing upon khasra No. 124, though evidently, it exists, upon, khasra No. 270/126. However, thereafter, and, in subsequent thereto paragraph, he had also made pleadings, vis-a-vis, the defendant, raising construction, of, a Gharat upon khasra No. 124, and, his also attempting to carry thereupto, a water channel, through his attempting to raise, a, water channel, upon, khasra No.125, for hence his ensuring the afore Gharat, being brought into operation. However, the afore stated Ext. PW-1/A, and, Ext. However, the afore stated Ext. PW-1/A, and, Ext. PW-1/B, upon, their evidently carrying rather reflections in repudiation, vis-a-vis, the afore pleadings, and, with the afore referred descriptions, borne therein, with echoings, qua, the suit khasra numbers being referred reflected, as, 'Banjar Kadim', and, 'nakabil jangal jhadi', and, with the afore descriptions, vis-a-vis, the afore suit khasra numbers hence acquiring conclusivity, (v) thereupon per-se the afore averments, cast in the plaint, were enjoined to be thereto conspicously when they remained unabled by apt documentary evidence Moreover, there onwards, during, the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had, cast an application before the learned trial Court, constituted under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for, hence therethrough his seeking leave, of the Court, to plead, qua the Gharat existing upon khasra No. 124, yet, the afore application also stood dismissed, (a) and, the order pronounced, on 28.8.2003, upon, the afore application, for want of it, being set aside, rather acquired conclusivity, (b) and, the requisite bindings effect there of, are, hence, a, concomitant sequel, being engendered and qua thereupon also, the plaintiff being estopped, to, claim rendition, of, the espoused decree, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers. However, even the afore trite factum probandum, appears to be slighted by the learned trial judge, and, thereupon the non meteing, of, deference by him, vis-a-vis, the afore preeminent admission, of, the plaintiff, whereupon he stood rather barred to claim, the espoused relief, has, caused a grave casualty, to, justice. The afore rendition hence arises from, a, gross mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation, of the afore factum, and, hence begets the imperative sequel, qua thereupon, the impugned verdict being not amenable for interference by this Court. 9. The above discussion, unfolds, qua the conclusion, as arrived by the learned first appellate Court, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. Accordingly, the substantial questions, of law are answered in favour of the defendant/respondent, and, against the plaintiff/appellant herein. 10. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed, and, the judgment and decree impugned before this Court is affirmed and maintained. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.