JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff''s suit for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, stood decreed, by the learned trial Court, and, the appeal reared thereagainst before the learned first appellate Court, by the aggrieved therefrom defendant, also sequelled a verdict rather affirming the verdict recorded, by the learned trial Court. The defendant, is, aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the allegations that he was owner in possession of land comprising in khasra No. 100/101, measuring 2.17 bighas, situated in Chak Jagoti, as the same had fallen in his share in a family partition which took place inter se the co-sharers. During recent settlement operation, new khasra numbers have been allotted to the said land, whereas, he has been shown to be the owner of new khasra No.329, measuring 0-13-74 hectares i.e. equivalent to 1.16 bighas, the defendant has been shown to be the owner of Khasra numbers 332 and 331 comprised in Khata Khatauni no.7/14 min situated in revenue Chak Jagoti, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, the area of which is about 1 bigha. Both the said khasra numbers are contiguous to Khasra No.329. It has been pleaded that since his area had been reduced by 1 bigha, for this reason, the settlement record was not prepared correctly and for getting the same corrected, he has moved an application. In fact, the suit land which has been shown by khasra No.331 and 332 was the part of old khasra numbers 100 and 101. On the spot, he has been in possession of land measuring 2.17 bighas which now comprises Khasra No.329, 332 and 331. On this land measuring 2.17 bighas, which is cultivable, he had also raised an apple orchard. It has been pleaded that taking undue advantage of wrong revenue entries, the defendant made an attempt on 12.10.1997 to dispossess him from the suit land by threatening to plough it but his such attempt was made futile. 3. The defendant contested the suit, and, filed written statement to the plaint, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability as the suit for possession of the suit land has already been filed against the plaintiff b y the defendant, hence, it is liable to be stayed. 3. The defendant contested the suit, and, filed written statement to the plaint, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability as the suit for possession of the suit land has already been filed against the plaintiff b y the defendant, hence, it is liable to be stayed. On merits, it is pleaded that there is nothing wrong in the settlement record because khasra No.331 and 332 correspondent to old Khasra No. 264/79 and 99 min. It was specifically denied that khasra numbers 331 and 332 are the part of the land of the plaintiff. Since, the suit land is owned by him as per the latest revenue record, the plaintiff had no legal right to encroach upon the same. In the demarcation, which he had applied for and finally decided on 10.9.1997, the suit land was found to have been encroached upon by the plaintiff and in order to recover its possession, he filed a suit for possession. Since, the land of the defendant had been in possession the plaintiff, for this reason, he has no cause of action to file the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement, and, re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On 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 permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by principle of lis pendis?OPD. 3. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the defendant/appellant(s) herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed, the, findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendant(s)/appellant(s) herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 7. Now the defendant(s)/appellant(s) herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 16.5.2005, this Court, though admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant(s)/appellant(s), against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, however, therein it omitted to frame the substantial question of law, yet during the course of hearing, the following substantial questions of law arise for determination, inter se the contesting litigants:- 1. Whether the relief of injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff inasmuch as, as per the latest revenue records, which were prepared in the settlement operation, the defendant was reflected as an owner of the suit property and no injunction can be passed in favour of the trespasser against the true owner of the property? 2. Whether once it is proved that the application for correction of revenue entries as contained in Ex.DW1/A filed by the defendant before the settlement authorities is still pending and no final orders have been passed and the records prepared during the course of the proceedings of the said application have not been approved and verified by the competent authorities, the learned courts below could base their findings and rely upon the aforesaid records prepared by the PW-4? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The litigating parties, do not wrangle, vis-a-vis, the factum, that an application for correction of revenue entries, as carried in the revenue records, appertaining to the suit land, still being subjudice, before the settlement authorities concerned. However, both the learned courts below, appear to slight, and, overlook the factum qua the requisite application for begetting corrections, in the revenue entries, as, borne in the jamabandis, and, in the missal hakiyat, and, appertaining to the suit land, correction application whereof, is, embodied in Ex.DW1/A, rather pending adjudication before the settlement authorities. However, both the learned courts below, appear to slight, and, overlook the factum qua the requisite application for begetting corrections, in the revenue entries, as, borne in the jamabandis, and, in the missal hakiyat, and, appertaining to the suit land, correction application whereof, is, embodied in Ex.DW1/A, rather pending adjudication before the settlement authorities. Both the learned courts below, yet proceeded, to mete sanctity, to the reflections carried in the column of ownership, and, of, possession in the missal hakiyat, and, in the jamabandis, appertaining to the suit land, (i) and, further, on anvil of, presumption of truth being enjoyed, by the afore reflections, and, with no potent rebuttable evidence, for dislodging the afore presumption of truth, being adduced on record, hence proceeded to grant the espoused decree, of permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff qua the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendant. 9. Be that as it may, the afore assigned reason, by both the learned courts below, to thereafter proceed to accord, the, espoused relief to the plaintiff, garners fortification from Ex.PW1/J, (I) exhibit whereof is a demarcation report, prepared by the revenue official concerned, with echoings therein, qua the disputed khasra numbers being owned, and, possessed by the plaintiff. 9. Be that as it may, the afore assigned reason, by both the learned courts below, to thereafter proceed to accord, the, espoused relief to the plaintiff, garners fortification from Ex.PW1/J, (I) exhibit whereof is a demarcation report, prepared by the revenue official concerned, with echoings therein, qua the disputed khasra numbers being owned, and, possessed by the plaintiff. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore reliance, by both the learned courts below, upon afore apposite reflections, carried in the jambandis, and, in the missal hakiyat, appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, and, upon, Ex.PW1/J, are all infirm, as, (ii) with uncontrovertedly, an application for correction of the revenue entries, as, borne in Ex.DW1/A, standing preferred by the defendant before the settlement authorities concerned, for, therethrough his striving to, bring corrections in the diminution or reduction, from, his hitherto size, of holdings, reflected in the pre-settlement old khasra numbers, vis-a-vis, the extantly assigned post settlement suit khasra numbers, (iii) AND, dehors even though, the afore application remained subjudice, before the settlement authorities concerned, did enjoin, the learned trial Court, to, in consonance with the afore contention, raised by the plaintiff, in his plaint, hence strike an issue, and, also enjoined it, to, ensure qua discharging evidence therewith, standing adduced thereon, by the litigants concerned, (iv) and, even if the afore infirmity, may not beget, any entrenched vice of illegality or impropriety, percolating or seeping into the impugned verdict(s), (v) given want of an adjudication being rendered, by the competent revenue authorities, upon, Ex.DW1/A, (vi) besides when, only, upon the afore apposite application, rather preferred hence for curing the espoused infirmities, existing in the pre-settlement records, and, in the settlement proceedings, hence securing an affirmative or a disaffirmative order thereon, rather would facilitate, the learned courts below hence to make an apt adjudication, upon, the lis, engaging the parties at contest, (vii) hence, also enjoined the learned courts below, to rather, await a pronouncement being made on Ex.DW1/A, or may be enjoined them, to, hence dismiss, as, premature, the plaintiff''s suit, as prima facie, no valid accurable cause of action, stood thereat, hence bestowed upon the plaintiff. However, both the learned courts below, despite, no adjudication being rendered, upon, an application for requisite correction(s), and, as borne in Ex.DW1/A, yet proceeded to mete sanctity, and, solemnity, to the reflections carried in the jamabandis, and, in the missal hakiyat, appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, (viii) emphasisingly, when the afore entries were concerted, to be dislodged or belittled, vis-a-vis, their vigour, by the defendant by his casting an application, for correction of the revenue entries, as appertaining, to the suit khasra numbers. Even, otherwise thereupon, with no presumption of truth, being attachable, to the reflections carried in the missal hakiyat, and, as appertaining to the suit land, rather, also the preferment of the afore application, was suffice, to conclude, that there, was, a valid endeavour, to unsettle the vigour, of, the afore reflections, (ix) and, until an adjudication was rendered thereon, holding leanings, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, rather thereupto, the presumption of truth enjoyed by them, remained under cloud, and, also remained concerted to be rebutted, and, hence prima facie no conclusivity, was fastenable, upon, the reflections carried in the revenue records, appertaining to the suit land, (x) merely, upon, the pretextual ground qua the afore entries enjoying, any, presumption of truth, and, given no rebuttable evidence being adduced hence for dislodging the vigour(s) thereof. However, given the defendant/appellant herein, filing a suit, for possession, bearing Civil Suit No. 17 of 1999, titled as Chet Ram vs. Satya Devi, and, even thereon by this Court rather findings adversarial to the defendant, standing recorded, and, in the appeal as has arisen therefrom, before this Court, bearing RSA No. 173 of 2005, (xi) yet the mere institution of the afore suit, irrespective of the fact that it has any validity, also assumingly, if the afore suit may be premature, given Ex.DW1/A being subjudice, rather does constitute an admission of the defendant qua the plaintiff, being in possession of the suit property, (xii) and, when the solitary factum, and, parameter, to be borne in mind, vis-a-vis, the rendition, of, a valid decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, is the settled possession of the contesting litigants concerned, vis-a-vis, the suit property, (xiii) hence, with the afore institution of the suit, for possession against the plaintiff herein by the defendant, reiteratedly, constitutes rather his admission qua the plaintiff being in possession, of the suit land, hence, this Court is constrained to dismiss the instant appeal, and, uphold the concurrent verdicts recorded, by both the learned courts below. 10. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by both the learned courts below, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned Courts below have not excluded germane, and, apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, both the substantial questions, of law are answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and, against the defendant/appellant. 11. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed , and, judgments impugned before this Court are affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.