Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-Briefly summed up, the facts of the case are that plaintiffGobind Ram aged about 68 years son of Smt.Durgi Devi wife ofSh.Sant Lal, resident of Gali Ghosian, Pana Narsan, Halu Bazar,Bhiwani had brought a suit against the defendants Shanti Devi andIndro Devi, both daughters of Kishori, resident of Bhiwani, seeking adecree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants fromalienating 1/3rd portion of the house in question shown in red colourmarked with letters ABCD forming part of house marked by lettersAGFH bearing MC Unit No.C-333 situated at Gali Ghosian, PanaNarshan, Halu Bazar, Tehsil & District Bhiwani. 2. As per the version of the plaintiff house in dispute shownwith letters AGFH in the site plan annexed with the plaint was ownedand possessed by three owners namely S/Sh.Munna Lal, Kishori Laland Baijnath Kedia; all three of them had mutually partitioned thehouse, resultantly portion shown by letters ABCD fell to the share ofBaijnath Kedia, whereas portion shown by letters BCEH fell to theshare of Kishori Lal and portion shown shown by letters DGFE fellto the share of Munna Lal; all the three portions have differententrances, though in the municipal record the entire house has beenshown by one Municipal unit No.C-333; Baijnath Kedia hadexecuted a Will in the year 1938 bequeathing his entire estateincluding the disputed house in favour of Durgi Devi; after death ofBaijnath Kedia, Durgi Devi inherited the house/portion; Durgi Devihad three sons i.e. plaintiff Gobind Ram, Shyam Lal and Piare Lal;Gobind Ram is looking after the portion of the house in question forhimself and and his brothers; all three of them were exclusiveowners in possession of the portion of the house shown in red colourmarked with letters ABCD after death of Durgi Devi for last 12years; Kishori Lal had two daughters, namely, Shanti Devi and IndroDevi, who are defendants in the suit; that after death of Kishori Lal,his two daughters aforesaid became owners in possession of theportion of the house depicted with letters BCEH; the defendantstaking advantage of the fact that the entire house has been allottedone municipal No.C-333 intended to sell the entire house includingthe portion of the plaintiff, not listening to request of the plaintiff todesist from doing so, as such the plaintiff brought the suit inquestion. 3. 3. On being put to notice, the defendants appeared and filedwritten statement taking various preliminary objections contendingthat the plaintiff did not have any locus standi to bring the suit; thatno cause of action arose to the plaintiff to bring the suit; that the suitwas not maintainable in the present form and was liable to bedismissed with special costs under Section 35-A CPC; that theplaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing thesuit. On merits, the defendants denied the assertions in the plaintcontending that Baijnath Kedia had no concern with the house indispute and the plaintiff was not in possession of any part thereof;that in the municipal record, the house was shown in the name ofShanti Devi--defendant No.1; that defendant No.2--Indro Devi hasalready given her share to defendant No.1--Shanti Devi; that theplaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest had/has no concern with thehouse in question; similarly Baijnath Kedia has nothing to do withsuch house, as such there was no question of his executing any Willin favour of Durgi Devi in the year 1938; as a matter of fact the suitproperty was owned and possessed by one Sanwal Ram, who washaving two sons, namely, Munna Lal and Kishori Lal; after death ofSanwal Ram, the suit property devolved upon Munna Lal andKishori Lal; Munna Lal has given his share to Kishori Lal; after thedeath of Kishori Lal, the suit property devolved upon the defendants.Refuting the remaining assertions in the plaint, the defendants prayedfor dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff had filed replication controverting theallegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the avermentsin the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues wereframed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanentinjunction as prayed for in the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in thepresent form? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi tofile the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conductfrom filing the prsent suit? OPD. 5. Relief. 6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff had got hisstatement recorded as PW2 and he had further examined Sh.Piare Lalas PW1, Sh.Kanwar Pal Singh as PW3 besides tendering certaindocuments. 7. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 Shanti Devi gother statement recorded as DW1 and the defendants had furtherexamined Sh.Amir Chand Taneja as DW2 and Smt.Laxmi Devi asDW3. 6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff had got hisstatement recorded as PW2 and he had further examined Sh.Piare Lalas PW1, Sh.Kanwar Pal Singh as PW3 besides tendering certaindocuments. 7. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 Shanti Devi gother statement recorded as DW1 and the defendants had furtherexamined Sh.Amir Chand Taneja as DW2 and Smt.Laxmi Devi asDW3. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trialCourt decided issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff, issues No.2 to 4against the defendants. Resultantly suit of the plaintiff was decreedand the defendants were restrained from alienating 1/3rd share in thesuit property marked by letters ABCD in the site plan. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, thedefendants had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge,Bhiwani, which was assigned to Additional District Judge, Bhiwani,who vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014 accepted the appealand set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court anddismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 10. Now it was the turn of the plaintiff to feel dissatisfiedwith the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge,Bhiwani and he has knocked at the door of this Court by way offiling regular second appeal praying that the same be accepted, theimpugned judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge,Bhiwani be set aside and the suit filed by them be decreed. 11. On getting notice of regular second appeal, therespondent No.1 has appeared before this Court through counsel. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of theappeal, appellant/plaintiff Gobind Ram had expired and his LRs werebrought on record. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 14. 11. On getting notice of regular second appeal, therespondent No.1 has appeared before this Court through counsel. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of theappeal, appellant/plaintiff Gobind Ram had expired and his LRs werebrought on record. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 14. A perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court goesto show that it had decreed the suit basically for the followingreasons: (i) that plaintiff is supporting his claim of title on the basis of a Will allegedly executed in favour of Durgi Devi, mother of the plaintiff by one Baijnath Kedia and rent agreement of year 1946 and 1953, whereas defendants are basing their claim relying upon entries in assessment register of municipal committee as well as electricity bills but none of those documents was a document of title, as such both the parties were sailing in the same boat qua the question of title, however, the Will having been executed in the year 1937 carries presumption of correctness in view of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act and the boundaries of the property as shown in the site plan Ex.P1 completely tally with the boundaries as given in the Will; (ii) that as Will Ex.P3 is produced from proper custody and was a 80 years old document that too when there was neither actual nor prospective dispute, as such the Will goes a long way to show that said Baijnath Kedia was owner in possession of the disputed property, though in the strict sense, the will is not the proof of title of Baijnath Kedia; similarly, rent agreement Ex.P4 is of the year 1946 and another rent agreement is of the year 1953 when there was not any actual or prospective dispute qua the title or possession etc., therefore, these documents also speak a lot in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that said Baijnath Kedia was owner in possession of the property; (iii) that site plan got prepared by defendants Ex.D37 reflects that the house is constructed in such a manner as if the same was used by different owners inasmuch it has two kitchens and two courtyards as admitted by DW1 in her cross examination that there was a wall partitioning the disputed property and if the property is owned and possessed by Kishori Lal only as per the case of the defendants, then there would not have been any partition and separation in the disputed property because as per case of the defendants brother of Kishori Lal had already given his share in the property to him; (iv) that partition wall shows that 1/3rd area was separated from the house which is shown in red colour marked by letters ABCD, thus it transpired that suit property was partitioned and the same was enjoyed by the predecessor-in-interest of defendants and predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff i.e. Baijnath Kedia; (v) that a perusal of assessment register copies Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 shows that Munna Lal son of Kishori Lal is owner in possession of the Municipal Unit No.C-333 measuring 113 square yards, however site plan Ex.D37 of defendants reflects the area of property to be not less than 170 yards and if Munna Lal was owner in possession of the whole property then in municipal record the area would have been mentioned as 170 yards and not 113 square yards, therefore even assessment register supports the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is owner to the extent of 1/3rd share where the defendants are owner in possession of 2/3rd share. As such plaintiff was found to be owner in possession of the suit property. 15. However, learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani inhis judgment disagreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court.The relevant discussion is contained in para No.13 of the judgment,which for ready reference is reproduced as under: 13. First of all, plaintiff is required to prove that what was the connection of said Baijnath with the suit property and what was the relation between Bannath, Kishorl Lal and Munna Lal. A perusal of the file reveals that plaintiff has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to connect all these persons. Baijnath is not related to Kishori and Munna Lal. In the entire evidence of plaintiff plaintiff no where mentioned about the relationship of Kihori Lal, Munna Lal with Baijnath. In the pleadings plaintiff claimed that the house in dispute was mutually partitioned but there is no evidence whatsoever available on the file to prove the partition. The case of plaintiff-respondent is based upon the Will executed by Baijnath in favour of Durgi Devi and Will is not a document of title in favour of Baijnath. Admittedly, there is no proof regarding ownership of the suit property on the file in favour of Baijnath. Plaintiff is heavily relied upon the Will executed by Baijnath in favour of Durgi Devi but this document is not sufficient to prove the ownership of Baijnath. Even otherwise, Will is also not proved on the file. Learned trial court has also heavily relied upon the Will Ex.P-3 by saying that Will Ex. P-3 was executed on 19th April, 1937 and at that time there was no dispute, therefore, the Will is seems to be genuine. But in the considered opinion of this court, plaintiff must prove his own case by producing cogent and convincing evidence. Plaintiff in his oral evidence has examined one Pyare Lal, who during cross examination has admitted that Munna Lal, Kishori Lal and Baijnath were not related to each other. He also admitted that the possession of share of plaintiff is with Shanti Devi which was given to them during the lifetime of Kishori Lal and Munna Lal. PW-2 Gobind Ram, who is brother of plaintiff, also admitted that he, Shyam Lal, Pyare Lal are residing and Delhi and Punjab. He also admitted that the possession of share of plaintiff is with Shanti Devi which was given to them during the lifetime of Kishori Lal and Munna Lal. PW-2 Gobind Ram, who is brother of plaintiff, also admitted that he, Shyam Lal, Pyare Lal are residing and Delhi and Punjab. He has taken a stand in his cross examination that Baijnath had purchased the house in dispute by registry but plaintiff has not produced said registry of the house in dispute. 0n the other hand, defendants to prove their possession have relied upon the electricity bills and house tax assessment record of the house Unit No. C-333. As per house tax assessment record, the suit property is in the name of Shanti Devi till today. There is no mention about the name of Baijnath in any revenue record. The alleged Will is also not reflected in any record. Had there been any Will executed in the year 1938 in favour of Durgi Devi, then certainly her name must be mentioned in the official record or other record, but there is no evidence on the file to prove that property bearing Municipal No.C-333 was ever in the name of Durgi Devi. Plaintiff is claiming that defendants be restrained from alienating the suit property but first they were required to prove their connection with the suit property. By producing Will Ex.P-3 it cannot be conclusively held that plaintiff has 1/3rd share in the suit property. 16. The reasoning given by learned Additional DistrictJudge, Bhiwani is much more plausible and convincing than thereasons put forward by the trial Court for decreeing the suit of theplaintiff. 17. Permanent injunction dealt with by Section 38 of theSpecific Relief Act is a discretionary equitable relief, which is to begranted by the Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances ofthe case including the conduct of the parties and no person can claimthis relief as a matter of right. For being successful, the plaintiff wasrequired to establish by producing cogent and convincing evidencethat he is co-owner of the suit property along with the defendants.The plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the house in dispute. For being successful, the plaintiff wasrequired to establish by producing cogent and convincing evidencethat he is co-owner of the suit property along with the defendants.The plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the house in dispute. Therelevant finding recorded by the trial Court that his title to the houseis there which is derived from his mother Durgi Devi, who had inturn acquired it from Baijnath Kedia by testamentary succession.There is no document to show ownership of Baijnath Kedia qua theportion of house in question, as such he could not have transferred avalid title to Durgi Devi and after death of Durgi Devi, her sonsincluding plaintiff Gobind Ram could not have possibly acquired anyownership right in the house or in any portion thereof. Unless will isproved by examining at least one attesting witness, its due executionis not taken to be proved. Merely because the will is more than 30years old, its execution does not get proved and it cannot be taken tobe a genuine document. For the similar reasons, the rent agreementcould not be accepted as a document of title in favour of plaintiff/hispredecessor-in-interest. The judgment passed by the trial Court isbased upon assumptions and presumptions as well as conjectures.The judgment granting relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiffis certainly not sustainable, whereas judgment passed by AdditionalDistrict Judge, Bhiwani is well reasoned, based upon properappraisal and appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation oflaw. There is no illegality or infirmity therein, which might havecalled for interference by this Court by way of accepting the regularsecond appeal. 18. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 19. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appealand do not see any reason to disturb the legal, valid and wellreasoned judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. 20. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.