JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This bunch of appeals was taken up together for consideration and is being disposed of by common judgment as it involves overlapping issues. 2. The parties are ad idem that the fate of other appeals virtually would be dependent on outcome of RSA No. 201/2003, therefore, the same is taken up as the lead case. The parties shall be referred to as the "plaintiff" and "defendants". 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants are sons of Tulsi Ram and being real brothers are co-owners in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that in the recent settlement, the suit land was assigned new Khasra numbers whereas in the year 1973, the plaintiff and defendant No.1, Kundan Lal (since deceased) had agreed to exchange the suit land with the understanding that defendant No.1 would relinquish his entire 1/3rd share in the suit land in his favour and the plaintiff would give him equal land to the extent of the share of defendant No.1 in Mauja Dochi. He therefore, purchased land measuring 15 bighas 6 biswas from one Kaka Ram through a registered sale deed No.91, dated 1.10.1973 and out of this land, 1/2 share of the land was transferred in favour of defendant No.1 by way of said sale showing him to be the purchaser and owner of 1/2 share i.e. 7 bighas 13 biswas despite the fact that the said land was exclusively purchased by the plaintiff from said Kaka Ram. It was further averred that at that time, defendant No.1 was un-employed having no source of income and thus, by way of purchase in the name of defendant No.1, the plaintiff had performed his part of the agreement and defendant No.1 was required to relinquish his 1/2 share of the land situated in Mauja Dhariyan, i.e. the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land, therefore, he had made lot of improvements by raising an orchard, but defendant No.1 started demanding his share in the land relying upon wrong revenue entries and threatened to seek partition. Hence, the suit. 4. Since the plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land, therefore, he had made lot of improvements by raising an orchard, but defendant No.1 started demanding his share in the land relying upon wrong revenue entries and threatened to seek partition. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein he raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi, estoppel and claimed that the suit land had already been partitioned inter se the parties as per orders passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kandaghat on 3.6.1995 in partition case No. 30/S-A of 1994, titled as Kundan Lal vs. Harbans Lal etc and the instrument of the partition had also been prepared and only mutation remained to be entered. On merits, defendant No.1 denied factum of exchange and the payment of entire consideration by the plaintiff with respect to the land purchased on 1.10.1973 from Kaka Ram. 5. In replication, preliminary objections were denied by the plaintiff and on merits, he re-affirmed and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 30.7.1997 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant No.1 had relinquished his share by way of exchange in the suit land, in favour of the plaintiff, as alleged ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is answered in affirmative, whether the plaintiff has become owner-in possession of 2/3rd share in the suit land, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit, as alleged ? OPD 5. Whether the suit land has already been partitioned by metes and bounds qua parties, if so its effect? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 7. Relief. 7. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.2002 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2002 also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2003 constraining the plaintiff to file the instant appeal. 8. On 18.8.2003, the appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1. The appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2002 also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2003 constraining the plaintiff to file the instant appeal. 8. On 18.8.2003, the appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether adverse inference has wrongly been drawn against the appellant by both the courts below on the ground that he failed to appear as his own witness? 2. Whether the defendant having failed to appear as his own witness to contradict the claim of the appellant, an adverse inference was required to be drawn? 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW NO. 1 and 2: 10. Since both substantial questions of law are intrinsically interlinked and interconnected, therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and are being answered by common reasoning. 11. It is vehemently argued by Mr. G. D. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate, that there was no question of drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff especially when even defendant No.1 had not stepped into the witness box. 12. Admittedly, defendant No.1 did not appear in the witness box, but then it is for the plaintiff to stand on his own legs and he cannot rely upon weakness of the defendant's case. 13. As regards adverse inference, it is more than settled that withholding of the plaintiff himself from the witness box and thereby denying the defendant an opportunity for cross- examination of himself results into an adverse inference being drawn against the plaintiff. (Refer: Ishwar Bhai. C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera and Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 457 ). Yet it needs to be clarified that the adverse inference even in such circumstances against a party must be drawn only when there is no other evidence available on record to prove the issue in question. 14. Now, the moot question is whether the plaintiff has in fact led any evidence regarding plea of exchange. 15. The plaintiff examined his wife Satya Verma as PW1, who deposed that her husband had paid entire sale consideration of sale deed No. 91, dated 1.10.1973. She deposed that at that relevant time, defendant No.1 was undergoing NCC training and was studying in school. 15. The plaintiff examined his wife Satya Verma as PW1, who deposed that her husband had paid entire sale consideration of sale deed No. 91, dated 1.10.1973. She deposed that at that relevant time, defendant No.1 was undergoing NCC training and was studying in school. She also deposed that in lieu of this land purchased by the plaintiff for defendant No.1, defendant No.1 gave in exchange his share in the joint property. Lastly she stated that defendant No.1 was unnecessarily interfering in the land given by him in exchange. In cross-examination, she admitted that the land had been partitioned amongst the parties. 16. Pw2 is Hem Raj, who has been termed by the trial court to be a procured witness. In his examination-in-chief, this witness deposed that when the land was purchased by way of a registered sale deed, the sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff. He further deposed that at that time, defendant No.1 had no source of income. However, In cross-examination, he said that the sale deed was not drafted in his presence, but he voluntarily stated that the payment was made by the plaintiff in his presence. Again changing his stand, he stated that money transaction did not take place in his presence. However, he again voluntarily stated that he had heard in the village that the sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff. 17. As against the evidence of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 examined his son, Ankush Verma, who paced on record copy of power of attorney Ext. D1 executed in his favour, whereby he was authorized to make statement on behalf of defendant No.1. According to him, joint holding stood partitioned. He also placed on record copy of instrument of partition, Ext. P2. He further deposed that the plaintiff had no concern in the land, which was allotted to defendant No.1 by way of partition. According to him, defendant No.1 had contributed a sum of Rs.3000/- for the purchase of land from Kaka Ram. At that time, his father (defendant No.1) was doing the vegetable business, besides pursuing his studies. In cross-examination, he deposed that sale deed was executed prior to his birth. He denied that his father was not doing anything at that time. 18. At that time, his father (defendant No.1) was doing the vegetable business, besides pursuing his studies. In cross-examination, he deposed that sale deed was executed prior to his birth. He denied that his father was not doing anything at that time. 18. Dw2 Madan Mohan, Patwari, substantiated and corroborated the statement of DW1 and stated that the suit and was jointly owned by the parties and the same stood partitioned, wherein each of the parties were in possession of their respective shares. 19. Both the learned courts below after evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties have rightly drawn an adverse inference against the plaintiff for having not stepped into the witness box and having examined Satya Verma his power of attorney because as per the power of attorney executed in her favour, she was not authorized to make any statement for and on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, in such circumstances, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned courts below, whereby they drew adverse inference against the plaintiff. 20. Even plea of oral exchange raised by the plaintiff remained unsubstantiated, rather it is proved on record that the joint holding inter se the parties, as reflected in the revenue record, stood partitioned and such plea otherwise stands duly substantiated and proved by way of instrument of partition, Ext. D-2. 21. The plaintiff has failed to show any perversity in the findings so rendered by the learned courts below. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove his case, mere fact that defendant No.1 did not appear in the witness box is of no avail especially when his son, who was acquainted with the facts of the case and was duly authorized by the power of attorney executed in his favour, had appeared in the witness box and proved the case of defendants. 22. As already stated above, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and prove his case, rather than relying upon the weakness of the defendants' case. 23. Both the substantial questions of law are answered against the plaintiff. 24. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. RSA No. 87/2011 25. 23. Both the substantial questions of law are answered against the plaintiff. 24. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. RSA No. 87/2011 25. The plaintiff, Kundan Lal (since deceased) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, Harbans Lal and his wife Satya Devi, from causing any sort of interference in the suit land, which was in his absolute ownership and possession, comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 45/92, bearing Khasra Nos. 186, 187, 647/196, Kitas 3, measuring 0-59-49 hectares, situated in village Dochi, Pargana Chail, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, whereas the defence taken by the defendants was that the matter was pending consideration in C. S. No. 2501/1 of 1998, titled as Harbans Lal vs. Nek Ram and Kundan Verma. 26. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 25.9.2003 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 4. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief. 27. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.0.2006 came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 constraining the defendants to file the instant appeal. 28. On 17.3.2011, the appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether there are material admissions on the part of the respondent about the defence of the earlier legal proceedings with respect to the subject matter of dispute and in view of such admissions, the suit filed by the respondent was either liable to be stayed or dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? 2. Whether there are material admissions on the part of the respondent about the defence of the earlier legal proceedings with respect to the subject matter of dispute and in view of such admissions, the suit filed by the respondent was either liable to be stayed or dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? 2. Whether the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court are beyond the scope of the pleadings because neither party placed reliance upon the provisions of Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, but even then the provisions of this Act have been applied and thus a new case has been created? 3. Whether there being Abadi of the appellants over the suit land, therefore, the Revenue Officer was not competent to pass orders for partition thereof? 4. Whether the proceedings in the present suit filed by the respondent were required to be stayed by invoking the provisions of Section 10 CPC especially in view of the fact that litigation is already sub judice between the parties initiated by the appellants prior in point of time? 29. Since this Court in RSA No. 201/2003, titled as Harbans Singh vs. Kundan Lal (deceased through his LRs. has already held the plaintiff Kundan Lal (since deceased) to be the owner of the suit land, therefore, all these substantial questions of law have been rendered academic. Moreover, the pleas sought to be raised in the suit are otherwise barred under order 2 Rule 2 CPC as the same ought to have been taken at the time of institution of Civil. Suit No. 2501/1 of 1998, titled as Harbans Lal vs. Nek Ram and Kundan Verma. 30. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. RSA No. 92/2011 31. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration, possession and injunction on the ground that he was recorded as co-owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the property comprised in Khewat No. 43, Khatauni No. 91, Khasra Nos. 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196 and 206 Kitas 8 measuring 1-61-82 square metres, Khatauni No. 92, Khasra Nos. 123, 177, 178, 179, 180, 186, kitas 6 measuring 0-46-55 sq. metres and Khatauni No. 93, Khasra No. 187 measuring 0-09-34 sq.mts. kitas 15, total measuring 1-72-71 sq. 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196 and 206 Kitas 8 measuring 1-61-82 square metres, Khatauni No. 92, Khasra Nos. 123, 177, 178, 179, 180, 186, kitas 6 measuring 0-46-55 sq. metres and Khatauni No. 93, Khasra No. 187 measuring 0-09-34 sq.mts. kitas 15, total measuring 1-72-71 sq. mts., situated in Mauja Up Mohal Dochi, Pargana Chail, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.p. along with defendants, but on account of arrangement, he had become co-owner to the extent of 2/3rd share in the suit property and a civil suit to this effect, titled as Harbans Lal vs. Kundan Lal was already pending in the court of Sub Judge,1st Class, Kandaghat. 32. Defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein he stated that the building in Khasra Nos. 178 and 179 was his exclusive property and the plaintiff and defendant No.2 had no concern with the land or property comprised in Khasra Nos. 123, 177, 178, 179, 180 and 186. 33. Defendant No.2 filed separate statement, wherein he raised preliminary objections to the effect that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and that in case No. 30/9A of 1994, partition had been effected and he had accepted the same vide his statement dated 3.6.1995 and, therefore, estopped from filing the suit. 34. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 5.3.2008 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the property in question is jointly owned and possessed by the parties as alleged? OPP 2. Whether order of partition dated 3.6.1995 having been passed by A.C. 1st Grade Kandaghat is illegal and wrong, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether defendants are raising construction in order to change the nature of joint land as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his act and conduct? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is barred under Section 10 CPC?. 10. Relief. 35. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.7.2008 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is barred under Section 10 CPC?. 10. Relief. 35. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.7.2008 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2008 also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 constraining the plaintiff to file the instant appeal. 36. On 18.5.2011, the appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction in view of Section 171 of H.P. Land Revenue Act? 2. Whether the learned courts below have misconstrued and mis-interpreted the pleadings and the evidence and have erred in dismissing the suit? 3. Whether learned courts below have wrongly drawn adverse inference against the appellant for failure to appear as a witness when his wife has appeared as General Power of Attorney of the appellant? 37. All the aforesaid substantial questions of law have been rendered redundant since this Court in RSA No. 201/2003, titled as Harbans Singh vs. Kundan Lal (deceased through his LRs. has already held Kundan Lal (since deceased) to be the owner of the suit land and the grounds as sought to be raised by the plaintiff are not available as the same ought to have been raised at the time of institution of Civil. Suit No. 2501/1 of 1998, titled as Harbans Lal vs. Nek Ram and Kundan Verma and are now barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 38. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. RSA No. 133/2013 39. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration, possession and injunction on the same and similar grounds as were taken by him in Civil. Suit No. 2501/1 of 1998, titled as Harbans Lal vs. Nek Ram and Kundan Verma qua his ownership and possession over the suit land. 40. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 10.8.1999 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the Will dated 9.11.1976 registered as document No. 28 dated 9.11.1976 with Sub Registrar, Kandaghat, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 is invalid document, marred by undue influence ? 40. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 10.8.1999 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the Will dated 9.11.1976 registered as document No. 28 dated 9.11.1976 with Sub Registrar, Kandaghat, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 is invalid document, marred by undue influence ? OPP 2. Whether the mutation No. 332 dated 10.12.1996 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 was illegal, invalid,as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the sale deed No. 190 dated 26.12.1996 and mutation No. 339 dated 14.2.1997 are also illegal, inoperative and void ab initio, as alleged ? OPD. 4. Whether the will dated 9.11.1976 was revoked and cancelled by Smt. Mathru vide document No. 17 daetd 25.10.1995, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether defendant No.5 has no legal right to alienate, create encumbrance, and to change the nature of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 6. Whether Late Smt. Mathru has executed a valid will in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 qua the suit land on 9.11.1976? OPD 7. Whether defendant No.6 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts, conduct and acquiescences from filing the suit? OPD. 9. Whether Smt. Mathru has executed a valid and legal will on 25.10.1995 in favour of defendant No.6, as alleged? OPD. 10. Relief. 41. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2010 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2010 also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2012 constraining the plaintiff to file the instant appeal. 42. On 11.6.2013, the appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are result of complete mis-reading, mis-interpretation of the evidence and material placed on record and against the settled provision of law? 43. Admittedly, the issue in question is no longer res integra or open to challenge in view of the decision rendered by this Court in RSA No. 201/2003, titled as Harbans Singh vs. Kundan Lal (deceased through his LRs., wherein deceased Kundan Lal has been held to be owner in possession of the land in dispute. Thus, the substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff. 44. Thus, the substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff. 44. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.