JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit, bearing Civil Suit No. 72 of 2004, wherein, he sought rendition of, a, decree, for declaration, vis-a-vis, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, stood dismissed, hence, by the learned trial Judge, (i) and, in an appeal carried therefrom, by the aggrieved plaintiff, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2005, made, a verdict, (ii) where through, the appeal of the plaintiff, was, partly accepted, and, hence the plaintiff, stood declared as joint owner, to, the extent of 45 share, along with, the, defendant, and, the performa defendants, (iii) whereas, the, declining(s), vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, rather by the learned trial Court, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, was, upheld. The defendant is aggrieved therefrom, and, hence through the instant appeal, has strived, to, beget, reversal of the verdict, pronounced, by the learned first appellate Court, upon, the afore civil appeal. The plaintiff also being aggrieved, vis-a-vis, declinings qua him of relief, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, has, through casting cross-objections No. 357 of 2006, rather, the instant appeal, has strived to seek reversal, of, declinings qua him, the afore espoused relief, by, the learned first appellate Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff along with the defendants and others is the joint owner in possession of the suit land. Out of total 72 shares of the disputed land, he is the owner with possession of 45 shares. Sh. Bhagtu (defendant) and Smt. Chunni Devi (Proforma defendant) are the owners in possession of 9 and 18 shares, respectively, of the land in dispute. He (plaintiff) has raised an apple orchard over the land in question which is situated adjacent to his house. The defendant Sh. Bhagtu keeps on interfering in his (plaintiff's) possession over the suit property unduly. The proforma defendant (Smt. Chunni Devi) is not causing any kind of interference because of which no relief is being claimed against her. Howe for the last one week, the defendant (Sh. Bhagtu) is threatening to raise the construction over the suit land forcibly without getting his share partitioned. He (plaintiff) had applied for partition of the disputed land. In the partition proceedings, the defendant raised the question of title and filed the objections. Howe for the last one week, the defendant (Sh. Bhagtu) is threatening to raise the construction over the suit land forcibly without getting his share partitioned. He (plaintiff) had applied for partition of the disputed land. In the partition proceedings, the defendant raised the question of title and filed the objections. The defendant is trying to change the nature of the joint land by raising a permanent structure over it forcibly and has started collecting the material on the site for the said purpose. The cause of action accrued in the month of April, 2004 when the defendant preferred false objections in the partition proceedings and finally a week ago when the defendants threatened to do the building work over the disputed property. He did request the defendants to desist from their illegal designing but in vain. The plaintiff has claimed the following relief(s) in the suit:- (i) the plaintiff be declared to be co-owner in joint possession of land comprised in khasra No. 1617 and 1621 khata/khatouni No. 728 min/1049 Phati Kharal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, to the extent of 45 shares; (ii) the defenants be restrained through the decree of prohibitory injunction from raising any sort of construction over the suit land till the same is lawfully partitioned among all the co-sharers, and, (iii) a decree for any other relief to which the plaintiff be found entitled and the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed with cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice. 3. On notice, the defendants appeared. They filed common written statement controverting the averments made in the plaint. Preliminary objections regarding the maintainability ad competency of the suit in the present form, locus standi of the plaintiff to sue, existence of the cause of action, estoppel, valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hand as well as he has suppressed the true and material facts from the court have been taken. On merits, the factum that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff has been denied. 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. On merits, the factum that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff has been denied. 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 for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit land is in exclusive possession of Chhapu, Dugla and Dilli and they sold their shares to defendant, if so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether in family partition suit land stood allotted to Chhapu, Duglu and Dilli? If so, its effect OPD 4. Whether defendants are in adverse possession of suit land? 5. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court had partly accepted, the, appeal, and, declared the plaintiff, to be a joint owner of the suit land, to the extent of 45 share, along with, the, defendant, and, the, proforma defendant, and, the findings qua dismissed, the, suit of the plaintiff, as, rendered by the learned trial Court, qua the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, whereof however upheld. 6. Obviously, through the instant Regular Second Appeal, cast, before this Court, by the defendant, the latter seeks reversal of the concurrent pronouncements, as, made, against him, by both the learned Courts below. 7. This Court, on 14.7.2006, had, admitted the appeal, instituted by the appellant/defendant against the judgment, and, decree, rendered, by the learned first Appellate Court, upon substantial questions of law Nos. 1 to 5, occurring at page No.7, of the paper book, for, its hence making, an adjudication thereon:- 1. Whether the first appellate court has erred in appreciating the provisions of law, pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, whereby, vitiated the impugned judgment and decree? 2. Whether the first appellate court has erred in appreciating the evidence by way of documents and pleadings, reaching at the wrong conclusion, whereby, vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 3. Whether the learned first appellate court has erred in pronouncing the impugned judgment and decree, without framing issue regarding the declaration, thereby, vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 4. 2. Whether the first appellate court has erred in appreciating the evidence by way of documents and pleadings, reaching at the wrong conclusion, whereby, vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 3. Whether the learned first appellate court has erred in pronouncing the impugned judgment and decree, without framing issue regarding the declaration, thereby, vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 4. Whether the first appellate court has erred, misread, misconceived, misappreciated the pleadings and documentary evidence on record, thereby, vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 5. Whether the land purchased form the khana kashat after khangi takshim leads to proper transfer of title, thereby amounts to transfer of malquit? 8. Also, this Court, on 30.11.2006, had, admitted the Cross-Objection, as, instituted by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, against, the judgment, and, decree, rendered, by the learned first Appellate Court, upon, substantial question of law, occurring at page No. 49, of, the paper book, for, its hence making, an adjudication thereon:- 1. Whether cross-objector (plaintiff) is entitled to permanent prohibitory injunction against the threatened acts of defendant No.1, another co-sharer in the possession of cross-objector on the suit land as well as threatened acts of defendant No.1 to usurp specific part of suit land by raising permanent construction thereon till the suit land is partitioned? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 5 in RSA No.112 of 2006 & Substantial question in Cross-Objection: 9. The defendant, through Ext. D-1, exhibit whereof, is a sale deed, executed, inter-se, one Chhapu, Duglu, and, Dilli, and, qua, the suit land, and with the defendant, hence acquired, a, share, in, the undivided suit land. Even though, reflections, as, appertaining, to, the suit khasra numbers, and, drawn prior to, the, execution, of, Ext. D-1, by the afore Chhapu, Duglu and Dilli, are, respectively borne, in, Ext. D-1, and, in D-4, (i) and all the afore trite displays qua the afore Chhapu, Duglu, and, Dilli, along with, the, proforma defendant, being recorded, as co-owners, in, the undivided suit khasra numbers. However, a, thorough perusal, of, the afore reflections does, also, make clear unfoldments, qua, the plaintiff, being recorded as, a, co-owner, in the suit land, hence to the extent of 45 share, (ii) however, the suit land is recorded, in, the exclusive possession of the defendant, after, his through Ext. However, a, thorough perusal, of, the afore reflections does, also, make clear unfoldments, qua, the plaintiff, being recorded as, a, co-owner, in the suit land, hence to the extent of 45 share, (ii) however, the suit land is recorded, in, the exclusive possession of the defendant, after, his through Ext. D-1, acquiring the share of the afore Chhapu, Duglu and Dilli, in the jointly recorded suit land, (iii) whereas, prior to the execution of Ext. D-1, the vendor of the contesting defendant, one Bhagtu, stands, recorded, to be, in exclusive possession of the suit land, as, a, co-sharer. Consequently, with the afore reflection, as, appertaining, to the suit land, hence making candid unfoldment(s), vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, holding co-ownership, in the suit khasra numbers, to, the extent of 45 share, rather, also along, with, the contesting defendant, and, the proforma defendant, (iv) and, with the jointly recorded suit khasra numbers, being not evidently and validly dismembered, through, metes and bounds, (v) thereupon the principle underlying, the, concept of co-ownership, begets attraction hereat, vis-a-vis, the undivided hereat hence suit khasra numbers, (vi) and thereupon the exclusivity, of, the possession, if any of the co-owners, concerned, rather not empowering the co-owners concerned, to, appropriate, vis-a-vis, their, exclusive user any portion, of, the undivided suit khasra numbers, (vii), as, thereupon the principle hence underlying, the, concept of co-ownership, and, comprised in each of the co-owners, holding unity, of, title and community, of, possession, vis-a-vis, every portion of the undivided suit land, necessarily becoming the inapt casualty, (viii) rather the exclusitivity, of, possession, if any, of the defendant, vis-a-vis, any portion, of, the undivided suit khasra numbers, is to be concluded, to be, symbolical possession thereof, even vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, (viii) and, thereupon with the plaintiff, holding evidently 45 share, in, the undivided suit khasra numbers, hence, until a valid dismemberment, of, the jointly recorded suit land, hence occurs, through, metes and bounds, rather thereupto, the plaintiff is entitled, to, a declaratory decree, of, joint possession, along with, the, defendant, (viii) or both, are, inferable, to, hold joint possession(s) thereof, and, hence the afore declining, of, a, decre, of, joint possession, to, the plaintiff, rather by the learned trial Judge, is inappropriate, and, the meteings, of, the afore relief, to, the plaintiff, rather by the learned first appellate Court, is, meritworthy. 10. 10. Be that as it may, the defendant had strived, to, validate his being recorded, to be, in exclusive possession, of, the undivided suit khasra numbers, through, his projecting qua a valid dismemberment, of, the undivided suit land rather occurring, and, also canvassed qua his completely ousting the plaintiff, from user of the suit khasra numbers, (i) the, afore espousals stand aptly declined by the learned first appellate Court, as, no best documentary evidence, came to be adduced, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit land, thereafter, way of adverse possession. 11. Since this Court, for reasons, as ascribed hereinabove, hence has recorded, a, conclusion, hence, rested, upon, the concept of co-ownership, and, the afore principle, carrying the apt underlinings, vis-a-vis, upto, a valid dismemberment, of the undivided suit land, hence occurs, through meets and bounds, thereupto each, of, the co-owners, hence being entitled, to, joint possession, of, the jointly recorded suit khasra numbers, (a) and, when hence this Court has, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff made, a, declaration qua his being entitled to, the, relief, of, joint possession, hence to the extent of 45 share, along with, the defendant, (b) and, whereupon the plaintiff, is entitled, for rendition, of, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, for, hence restraining the defendant, from, using any portion, of, the undivided suit khasra numbers, for, his/their exclusive use, as, declining, of, the afore relief, to the plaintiff, would entail upon him, the, misapplying of the afore principle, rather governing the rule of joint ownership, becoming the inapt casuality. 12. The above discussion, unfolds, qua the conclusion(s), as arrived by the learned Courts below, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation, of, evidence on record. Accordingly, the substantial questions, of law, are, answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and, against the appellant/defendant herein. However, substantial question, of, law, in, Cross-objections, are answered, in, favour, of, the cross-objector. 13. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal, is, dismissed, and, the judgment and decree impugned, before this Court, is, partly affirmed and maintained. However, the cross-objections, of, the plaintiff/respondent, is, allowed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.