Judgment 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2017 whereby suit for declaration and injunction has been dismissed by the District Judge, Jammu. 2. The case of the appellant is that he purchased land measuring 3 kanals and 2 marlas out of Khasra No. 192 min, Khata No. 1 min and Khewat No. 1 situated at Channi Rama, Tehsil and District, Jammu vide Sale Deed executed on 09.05.1994 and registered on 10.05.1994 by the Munsiff (Sub-Registrar), Jammu. 3. It is not disputed that Kapoor Singh and Puran Singh were the owners of Khasra No. 192 min measuring about 281 kanals having equal share in it being real brothers. Kapoor Singh died earlier and his share devolved upon his heirs including his sons, Joginder Singh and Shamsher Singh, as per mutation No. 702. Both of them sold the suit land to the appellant as per Sale Deed EXPWVNB. Puran Singh also died after the death of Kapoor Singh and his share was inherited by his legal heirs including his son, Viyas Singh, who sold land measuring 1 kanal out of Khasra No. 192 min vide Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006 in favour of Des Raj, father of defendant No.2, Dev Raj. 4. The appellant challenged the Sale Deed made by Viyas Singh, defendant No.1, in favour of Des Raj, father of defendant No.2, on the ground that the land sold in favour of Des Raj vide Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006 being part of the suit land, respondent/defendant No.1, Viyas Singh, had no right or title to transfer the land, therefore, the Sale Deed according to the appellant was a nullity and void ab initio. 5. Both the defendants have filed separate written statement, denying that the land measuring 1 kanal sold by the defendant No.1 is a part of the suit land. According to both of them, the land sold by defendant No.1 vide Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006 is a separate piece of land, from the one in possession of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, has never interfered with the possession of the plaintiff’s land. On the basis of pleadings filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2, issues were framed by the trial court on 07.08.2009. However, defendant No.1 filed his written statements only on 20.10.2009, therefore, the then District Judge decided to re-cast the issues by order dated 03.06.2011. On the basis of pleadings filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2, issues were framed by the trial court on 07.08.2009. However, defendant No.1 filed his written statements only on 20.10.2009, therefore, the then District Judge decided to re-cast the issues by order dated 03.06.2011. These issues are reproduced below:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas in Khasra No. 192 min of village Channi Rama, purchased by him vide Sale Deed dated 9.5.94 and registered on 10.5.1994? O.P.P 2. In case, issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether defendant No.1 has sold 1 kanal of the land out of the land, as mentioned in issue No.1, by virtue of sale deed dated 29.4.2006 and registered on 2.5.2006 in favour of defendant No.2 without any right or competency, if so what is its effect? O.P.P 3. Whether the boundaries and dimensions of the plot of land, sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, do not tally with the boundaries of the plot of the plaintiff, if so, what is its effect? O.P.D 4. Relief. O.P.Parties 6. However, the observations made by the then District Judge to justify the order dated 03.06.2011 are reproduced below: “...the law is settled that issues are framed on material question of law and fact, as projected by the parties in their pleadings. Considering in this background, the material question for determination before the court is, as to whether the land sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No2 is part of the land of the plaintiff, as projected by him in his suit. Therefore, it is in this background that the issues were to be framed. But considering the issues already framed, in the light of the pleadings of the parties, I am of this humble opinion that the issues framed need a relook and recasting. ...” Thus, the controversy stands narrowed down and crystallized by the court while recasting the issues. 7. The plaintiff besides his own statement examined Abid Hussain, Vijay Kumar, Jagdev Singh, Mohd. Hussain, Vaisho Dutt Bali, Kamal Singh, Shabir Ahmed-Patwari, as witnesses in addition to his own statement. 8. The defendants examined Mohd. Iqbal, Viyas Singh, Vijay Chopra, Girdhari Lal and Jagbir Singh as witnesses. Both the defendants have also appeared as witnesses. 9. 7. The plaintiff besides his own statement examined Abid Hussain, Vijay Kumar, Jagdev Singh, Mohd. Hussain, Vaisho Dutt Bali, Kamal Singh, Shabir Ahmed-Patwari, as witnesses in addition to his own statement. 8. The defendants examined Mohd. Iqbal, Viyas Singh, Vijay Chopra, Girdhari Lal and Jagbir Singh as witnesses. Both the defendants have also appeared as witnesses. 9. The trial court after appreciating the evidence found issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issues Nos. 2 & 3 against the plaintiff holding that the land sold by defendant No.1 was separate piece of land and not a part of the suit land. The suit was, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Appellant challenges the judgment and decree on various grounds, particularly, alleging that the evidence has not been properly appreciated and the suit has been wrongly dismissed because defendant No.1 has sold 1 kanal of land out of the suit land as there is no other land contiguous to the suit land in Khasra No. 192 min which by itself is sufficient to grant the relief claimed in appeal. 11. Mr. Ved Raj Wazir, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the description of the suit land in the plaint is sufficient to decree the suit. In support of this, Mr. Wazir placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court, reported as 1996 AIHC, 2700 titled ‘Hari Kumar v. Jai Narayan’ 2011 (2) SCC 639 and Manoranjan Choudhary and others v. Paritosh Dass, (RCR 2014, 163) decided by the Calcutta High Court, and AIR 1976 Patna (2) titled ‘Najar Khan and others v. Gopal Dass and others, AIR 2006 Sikkim 37 titled ‘Chewanj Dorzee Lamba v. Lerup Dorzee Bhutia and others’. The question involved in all these cases was, the application of Order 7 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code which is not relevant in this case because the suit land has been clearly defined in the sale deed dated 10.05.1994, as such, there is no dispute about description of suit land. 12. Learned senior counsel further argued that the trial court wrongly dismissed the suit because the possession of the plaintiff having been admitted, injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from interfering in the appellant’s possession ought to have been granted. 13. Mr. 12. Learned senior counsel further argued that the trial court wrongly dismissed the suit because the possession of the plaintiff having been admitted, injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from interfering in the appellant’s possession ought to have been granted. 13. Mr. L. K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, argued that the suit has been rightly dismissed because the suit land is different and the land purchased by father of respondent No. 2 is distinct and not a part of the suit land. Mr. Sharma further argued that the plaintiff could succeed only if the land measuring 1 kanal sold vide Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006 is proved to be a part of the suit land. Not otherwise. But there is not even a whisper in the evidence produced by the appellant to hold that the land sold by the defendant No.1 is a part of the suit land. 14. The finding of the trial court on issue No.1 is as under: “The law with regard to appreciation of evidence is well settled. The Section 101 of evidence Act states that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts, which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. According to general principle a party who has the burden of persuasion a fact must prove by ‘clear’ strong and convincing evidence. In present case initial burden was upon on the plaintiff to prove his case by showing that he was the registered trade mark of P for selling the rice, which has been infringed by defendant. In terms of section 102 of evidence Act, burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Further, contents of document may be proved by primary or secondary evidence in term of section 61 of evidence Act. Primary evidence means document itself, Secondary evidence means certified copies of original or copies made from original by mechanical process which insure copy of accuracy or copies made from or compared with the original etc. In civil case documents have to be proved by primary evidence. Primary evidence means document itself, Secondary evidence means certified copies of original or copies made from original by mechanical process which insure copy of accuracy or copies made from or compared with the original etc. In civil case documents have to be proved by primary evidence. In case primary evidence of documents were not available, then content of document were required to be proved by leading secondary evidence as per provisions mentioned in section 65 of evidence Act. In present case burden to prove this issue has been laid upon plaintiff. In the plaint plaintiff has stated that he purchased land measuring 03 kanal 02 marlas, forming part of khasra No.192 Min, Khata No.1 Min and Khewat No.1, situated at Channi Rama, Tehsil and District Jammu, by virtue of Sale Deed dated 09.05.1994, registered on 10.05.1994 by the Sub Registrar (Muffasil) Jammu. That on the basis of the Sale Deed, a mutation has been attested i.e. Mutation No.503, on the name of plaintiff on 28.11.1994, wherein the name of the plaintiff has been substituted in place of the vendors in the revenue record. The plaintiff was put in physical possession of the land, the plaintiff enclosed the land and on a portion of the same constructed a residential house and some portion of the land is vacant. He had filled the plinth and constructed wall of stones. He has been in possession of the land from the date of purchase and has even constructed house. The revenue department has attested the mutation bearing No. 503 on 28.11.1994 in his favor. Certified copy of mutation is in the file and Girdawari is also in his name. The certified copy of the same is also on record. Original sale has been annexed in file. On oath plaintiff has stated that he has purchased the land measuring 3 Kanals 2 Marlas from Khasra No. 192 min situated at Channi Rama. Registration was done on 05/1994; sale deed bears his signature; it has already been marked as EX-PW-A in court of CJM in the suit titled Suram Singh V/s Sukhdev Singh and Ors. It has been now marked as EX-PW-SS. PW Kamal Singh and PW Jagdev Singh, both have corroborated the facts narrated by plaintiff with regard to purchase of land 3 Kanals 2 Marlas from Khasra No. 192 min situated at Channi Rama by virtue of sale deed. It has been now marked as EX-PW-SS. PW Kamal Singh and PW Jagdev Singh, both have corroborated the facts narrated by plaintiff with regard to purchase of land 3 Kanals 2 Marlas from Khasra No. 192 min situated at Channi Rama by virtue of sale deed. PW Shabir Ahmed Patwari has proved certified copy of Khasra Girdawari of Khasra No. 192 min, Old 121 of Village Channi Ram from 1995 to Rabi 2007 EX-PWSA. PW Vaisho Dutt Bali is petition writer who wrote the contents of sale deed. So in this Way it has been proved that plaintiff has purchased land measuring 3 Kanals 2 Marlas from Khasra No. 192 min situated at Channi Rama vide sale deed EX-PW-SS registered on 10.5.1994.” 15. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the trial court found as under: “the plaintiff has proved that he is owner-in-possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas in Khasra No. 192 min of Village Channi Rama purchased by him vide Sale Deed dated 09.05.1994 and registered on 10.05.1994.” 16. Since the defendants have not denied the possession of plaintiff on 3 kanals 2 marlas of land as described in the Sale Deed and the stand of the plaintiff is that he has nothing to do with the plot purchased by father of defendant No.2 vide Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006 and as there is not even iota of evidence that land purchased by the father of defendant No. 2 is not part of the suit land, as such, the finding needs no interference. 17. Since the finding of the court is restricted to the land specified in the site plan (Tateema) annexed with the Sale Deed measuring 154 x 154 and 110 x 110 so, once the specification of the land described in para 4 are taken into consideration. This land would be more than 3 kanals 8½ marlas which has not been proved as the finding of the trial court is only regarding land specified in the Sale Deed. 18. Moreover, this finding has not been questioned by the appellant and according to PW-Abid Hussain, the then Tehsildar, Jammu in the absence of any Tateema Shajra in the Mutation, it is not possible to find out the location of the suit land in Khasra No. 192 min and this is also the statement of PW-Shabir Ahmed, Patwari of the Village. Moreover, this finding has not been questioned by the appellant and according to PW-Abid Hussain, the then Tehsildar, Jammu in the absence of any Tateema Shajra in the Mutation, it is not possible to find out the location of the suit land in Khasra No. 192 min and this is also the statement of PW-Shabir Ahmed, Patwari of the Village. However, since appellant’s possession of the suit land and the recitals of the Sale Deed is not disputed by the defendants, therefore, the trial court was justified in holding that the appellant is in possession of the land as per the specifications given in the Sale Deed. 19. This apart, appellant, Suram Singh, has admitted that he has not seen the plot of the defendants and, therefore, was unable to say anything about its location. According to him, it was his Advocate, who informed him about the specifications of the plot of the defendants, which means the averment made by him in the plaint alleging that the plot purchased by the father of defendant No.2 is part of the suit land is not based on his personal knowledge and his statement of interference by defendant No. 2 has no value. Moreover, statement of the plaintiff that he is not willing to get demarcation (nishandehi) of his plot and that of the plot owned by defendant No.2 demolishes his case as it is. This is further proof of the fact that the suit is founded on his ipse dixit only. His statement that the defendants have been interfering in the land in his possession from the west side of his plot, is false because the length of defendants’ plot on the west is 117 feet and eastern side 123 feet whereas plaintiff’s plot is only 110 feet on eastern and western sides. The plaintiff in his evidence is not even sure about the boundaries of his land and, therefore, the edifice of his suit is founded on hearsay evidence based on the information provided to him by his advocate the basis of which can be the recitals of the sale deed and not on ground reality. 20. PW-Viashno Dutt Bali has been examined to prove execution of Sale Deed dated 09.05.1994 of which he is the scribe being a petition writer. 20. PW-Viashno Dutt Bali has been examined to prove execution of Sale Deed dated 09.05.1994 of which he is the scribe being a petition writer. According to him, the specifications of the land as per Sale Deed is 110’ towards east and west and 154’ towards north and south, but as per para 4 of the plaint, the size of the plot towards the eastern side is 123 feet and western side is 123 feet’, which in fact is the demarcation of plot of the defendant No.2, but while the appeal was being argued, the appellant sprung a surprise by filing application in the Registry under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for permission to amend the plaint so as to indicate that suit land is 110 feet on the eastern and western sides instead of 117 feet and 123 feet as stated in para 4 of the plaint. The only ground for seeking permission to amend the plaint is that it was a typographical mistake. Even though as per the amended Rule 17 of Order 6, the application for amendment must be filed before the evidence is produced. The moot question is was the typographical mistake such, which could not be discovered for more than eight years. Since the plaintiff has vide sale deed purchased land as per the specifications given in the Sale Deed i.e. 154 x 154 and 110 x 110 on north south and east west respectively. The finding of the trial court in favour of the appellant in respect of the land as described in the sale Deed because Dasti Tateema is part of the Sale Deed. 21. Thus, the application seeking amendment is without merit because it is not imperative for proper and effective adjudication because of the finding retuned by the trial court and the application is not bona fide but is clearly mala fide. The law on the point has been laid down is Chakeshwari Construction (P) Ltd v. Manohar Lal (2017) 5 SCC 212 Para 13 of which is reproduced below: “13. The principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Ors. The principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Ors. MANU/SC/1724/2009 : (2009) 10 SCC 84 , this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in Para 63 of the judgment which reads as under: “63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken in to consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” Points 1 & 2 apply to the facts of the case on all fours for the reason stated heretofore. Since the finding of the trial court that appellant is in possession of land measuring 3 kanals and 2 marlas, described as 110 x 110 and 154 x 154 only as per Sale Deed has not been challenged by the appellant, therefore, the application is without any merit and therefore, rejected. 22. Issue Nos. 2 & 3 were decided by the trial Court by common judgment, the trial court has dismissed the suit holding that, “in view of the above discussion, I am of considered view that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant No.1 has sold 1 kanal of land out of plaintiff by virtue of Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006 and registered on 02.05.2006, in favour of father of defendant No.2. On the other hand defendant No.2 has proved that the land which was purchased by his father vide Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006 and registered on 02.05.2006 from defendant No.1 through attorney is not land of plaintiff, but is quite different land to that of land of plaintiff.” This finding is clearly in tune with the observation of the trial court made while recasting the issue on 03.06.2011. 23. This finding is supported by PW-Shabir Ahmed, the then Patwari Halqa, statement of the witnesses appearing for the plaintiff was not challenged by the plaintiff in the cross-examination. So it has to be read against him. This apart, the statement of plaintiff demolishes the case because his stand is there is compound wall around his land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas and he has constructed house at the centre of his land. It is not his case that defendant No.2 has ever threatened to demolish any part of his boundary wall or he has encroached on any side of the plot. When asked for getting demarcation of the plot, he declined which speaks volumes against him. It is only by demarcation that boundaries of the land could be fixed for which the plaintiff was unwilling. PW-Jagdev Singh also says that plot of plaintiff is enclosed by compound wall. He pleaded ignorance about the defendants’ plot. There is nothing in the statement of PW-Mohd. Hussain except some old litigation he had with the plaintiff. 24. PW-Kamal Singh says the plaintiff has enclosed his land by a boundary wall. In case the land of the plaintiff is enclosed by a boundary wall and there is no evidence that defendant No.2 has encroached it or is threatening to encroach it, the allegation of interference is only a made up story to support a false plea. The fact, however, is that there is not even a whisper in the statements of plaintiff, Suram Singh, Jagdev Singh, Mohd. Hussain, Kamal Singh that 1 kanal of land sold by the defendant No.1 to the father of defendant No.2 is part of the land purchased by the plaintiff as per Sale Deed dated 09.05.1994. The fact, however, is that there is not even a whisper in the statements of plaintiff, Suram Singh, Jagdev Singh, Mohd. Hussain, Kamal Singh that 1 kanal of land sold by the defendant No.1 to the father of defendant No.2 is part of the land purchased by the plaintiff as per Sale Deed dated 09.05.1994. This is despite the fact that while recasting the issue the District Judge has clearly stated that considering the background, the material question for consideration before the court is as to whether the land sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is part of the land of the plaintiff as provided by him in the suit. Despite this clear and emphatic statement, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to prove the fact in issues. 25. It was next argued that since the possession of the plaintiff has been admitted, therefore, relief of injunction could not be denied. In support of this, Mr. Wazir placed reliance on the judgments, Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported as 1961 AIR (Punjab and Haryana) 281. But since the plaintiff has failed to prove that land is purchased by father of the defendant No. 2 is part of the suit land and there being no evidence of threat or interference by the defendant No. 2 in the suit land, as such, relief or injunction cannot be granted, if being an relief in equity, plaintiff must come with clean hands. He cannot seek equitable relief merely because he was informed by counsel that the land sold by defendant No. 1 to father of defendant No. 2 is a part of the suit land purchased by the plaintiff, as he has no personal knowledge of the same. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed.