JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. During, the pendency of the plaintiff's suit, where through, the plaintiff strived for rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, as also, for rendition of a decree for mandatory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, (i) an application, cast under the provisions of Order 39, Rules trial Court, and, the latter proceeded to decline the espoused relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff being aggrieved there from, hence, there from had instituted an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the latter Court also rather affirmed the verdict recorded, by the learned trial Court. Obviously, the plaintiff being aggrieved there from, hence, has through the instant petition, strived to beget reversal, of, the afore concurrent verdicts, pronounced, by both, the learned courts below. 2. Uncontrolvertedly, the suit land, is unpartitioned, and, till dismemberment of the joint land is made through metes, and, bounds, (i) there upto, none of the co-owners, except with the consent of the each other, can proceed to utilise or appropriate, any, portion, of, the undivided suit property, vis-a-vis, their exclusive user(s). However, the afore principle, has certain limitations, and, exceptions, and, the apposite limitations or exceptions are qua the aggrieved plaintiff disturbing equities, by, (a) his also utilizing the valuable, and, best portion of the undivided suit property; (b) his uitilization of the undivided suit property being within his share; (c) defendant also raising construction upon the undivided suit property, and, his also making the afore construction within his share in the undivided suit property; (d) thereupon alike the plaintiff, his being also entitled to utilize the valuable, and, best portion of the undivided suit property, whereupon, hence, the requisite equities, being balanced inter se the plaintiff, and, the defendant. 3. For determining, qua the afore excepting principles, vis-a-vis, the cardinal rubric, hence, underlying the principle, of, co-ownership, and, also qua concomitant thereto applicable principles, regulating the granting or refusal of the afore relief, rather being satiated, vis-a-vis, the extant lis, an allusion, is imperative, vis-a-vis, paragraph No.11 of the judgment, rendered by the learned District Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala, upon, C.M. Appeal No. 13-K/DIV/2018, paragraph whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:- "11. As per plaintiff, the defendant is going to raise construction over the best and valuable portion of the joint land. He himself has admitted that the suit land is abutting to road. As per plaintiff, the defendant is going to raise construction over the best and valuable portion of the joint land. He himself has admitted that the suit land is abutting to road. For the aforesaid reasons, i find sufficient material on record to suggest that the plaintiff himself has got his built up structure over the suit land which is abutting to road. If plaintiff can have his structure abutting to road then how he can raise objection over the structure of defendant abutting to same road. Moreover, plaintiff was to establish that by raising proposed construction defendant is going to occupy more land than his share. In case the entire suit land is abutting to road then in the event of partition the defendant being the co-sharer would also get area in the suit land abutting to road equivalent to his share. There is no pleadings on the part of plaintiff about the are of share of plaintiff and at the same time there is nothing specific on record to show that the proposed construction of defendant is over more than his share. The plaintiff could have produced the Tatima or site plan of the spot showing the are over which the defendant is raising construction to establish that by raising construction defendant is exceeding to his share " (a) imperatively when a reading thereof, makes a candid display qua the afore excepting principle, being hence with profound elaboration, detailed in the afore paragraph, (b) and, its satiation being also begotten, (c) thereupon, this Court does not disagree, with, the echoings made therein, as, no material has been placed, on record, before this Court, that the afore observations, occurring in paragraph No.11 of the verdict of the learned District Judge concerned, are not, supported by any tangible material existing on record. 4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the orders impugned before this Court are affirmed, and, maintained. However, it is clarified that construction, if any, raised by the defendant, upon, the suit land, shall be raised entirely at his own risk, and, in case evidence, is, adduced, by the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, the afore excepting principles being not substantiated, thereupon, the learned trial Judge, may proceed to hence render a decree for mandatory injunction against the defendant. However, it is clarified that construction, if any, raised by the defendant, upon, the suit land, shall be raised entirely at his own risk, and, in case evidence, is, adduced, by the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, the afore excepting principles being not substantiated, thereupon, the learned trial Judge, may proceed to hence render a decree for mandatory injunction against the defendant. It is further made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merits of the case. The records, if received, be sent back forthwith.