JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under S.100 CPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 11.2.2019 passed by learned District Judge Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 93/2018, affirming judgment and decree dated 11.6.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.II Una, in Civil Suit No. 514/17/12 titled, Shama vs. Ashwani Kumar and another, whereby suit for injunction having been filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed. 2. Brief facts, germane for the adjudication of the appeal at hand are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining defendants from causing interference, taking forcible possession and changing nature by raising construction or in any other manner of the land measuring 0-02- 79 square metres, comprised in Khewat No. 147, Khatauni No. 2 300, Khasra No. 677, as entered in the Jamabandi for the years 2008-09, situate in Mohal Ajnoli, Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, 'suit land'), and in the alternative, for mandatory injunction with a direction to the defendants to restore the suit land to its original. Plaintiff claimed before learned court below that suit land is exclusively owned and possessed by her alongwith other co-shares and defendants being total strangers to the suit land has no right to interfere in the same. She further alleged that defendants being strangers to the suit land, with a view to grab land of the plaintiff are threatening to make interference, change nature and character by raising construction on the suit land and since they did not desist from doing so, despite repeated requests, she is compelled to file suit. 3. Defendants by way of written statement besides raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of suit claimed before learned court below that the plaintiff has not approached learned court below with clean hands and has made an attempt to suppress material facts. Defendants also claimed that no cause of action, if any, has accrued in favour of the plaintiff enabling her to file the suit as such, same deserves dismissal on this ground. On merits, defendants submitted before learned court below that the land in Khasra Nos. 2381/642, 2382/642, 2383/642 and land in Khasra Nos. 1379/641 and 1380/641 is owned and possessed by defendants alongwith other co-shares and land in Khasra Nos. On merits, defendants submitted before learned court below that the land in Khasra Nos. 2381/642, 2382/642, 2383/642 and land in Khasra Nos. 1379/641 and 1380/641 is owned and possessed by defendants alongwith other co-shares and land in Khasra Nos. 2373/632, 2377/639, 640 and 647 is owned by Himachal Pradesh Government and at present this land is being used as path by inhabitants of the village. Defendants claimed that a Gair Mumkin Rasta exists between the land of the plaintiff and the defendants and plaintiff under the garb of suit, wants to block that passage and at no point of time, they extended threats to the plaintiff and as such, suit deserves dismissal. 4. On the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, following issues came to be framed by learned trial Court on 8.5.2013: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether in the alternative is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP 3. Whether there is Gair Mumkin Rasta between the land of plaintiff, as alleged? OP 4. If issue No. 3 is decided affirmative, then whether the defendants are entitled to use the aforesaid Gair Mumkin Rasta as alleged? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff's suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has not approached with clean hands and concealed the material facts, as alleged? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff has not affixed proper court fee by proper valuation and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD 9. relief" 5. Plaintiff with a view to prove her case, besides examining herself as PW-1 also examined Suresh Raj (PW-2). Plaintiff also placed on record documentary evidence i.e. Ext. P1 Fard Jamabandi for the years 2008-09, whereas, defendants while examining defendant No.1 as DW-1 tendered in evidence various Jamabandis as Exts. D1, to D6. Court below, in the totality of the evidence collected on record by respective parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from causing interference in any manner over suit land. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree aforesaid, passed by learned court below, defendants preferred an appeal under S.96 CPC before learned District Judge Una, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.2019. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree aforesaid, passed by learned court below, defendants preferred an appeal under S.96 CPC before learned District Judge Una, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.2019. In the aforesaid background, defendants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for dismissal of suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff after setting aside judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below. 7. Aforesaid appeal having been filed by the defendants came to be admitted on 22.9.2013, on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?" 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused material available on record vis- -vis the reasoning assigned by learned Courts below, while passing impugned judgments and decrees, this court finds it difficult to agree with learned counsel appearing for the defendants that evidence led on record by respective parties has not been read in right perspective as a consequence of which findings to the detriment of the defendants have come on record. 10. Plaintiff while deposing as PW-1 categorically stated before learned court below that the defendants being utter strangers to the suit land, are threatening to cause interference and encroachment over the suit land by way of raising construction. In her cross-examination, she specifically denied the factum with regard to existence of any path beyond her land and that beyond that path, there is land of defendant-Ashwani. She stated that the land of defendants is 100-150 metres away from the path. This witness categorically deposed before learned court below that the land of defendants is not adjoining to the suit land. While admitting that there is a path adjoining to her land, PW-1 specifically denied that she has blocked the path. 11. Suresh Raj, PW-2 while supporting aforesaid version of PW-1 specifically stated before learned court below that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff alongwith other cosharers and the defendants have no right in the suit land. While admitting that there is a path adjoining to her land, PW-1 specifically denied that she has blocked the path. 11. Suresh Raj, PW-2 while supporting aforesaid version of PW-1 specifically stated before learned court below that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff alongwith other cosharers and the defendants have no right in the suit land. This witness also supported the version of PW-1 that the defendants threatened to cause interference over the suit land. In his cross-examination, PW-2, while admitting that there is a path adjoining to land of the defendant Ashwnai, stated that the suit land owned by plaintiff is beyond the land of defendant Ashwani. This witness also stated in his crossexamination that the dispute inter se plaintiff and defendants arose after purchase of land by defendant Ashwani. This witness specifically denied the suggestion put to him that the plaintiff wants to take possession of path at the spot, rather this witness stated that it is defendants who want to take possession of the path. This witness also stated that the defendants want to grab land of the plaintiff. 12. Defendant Pushpa Devi, while deposing as DW-1 deposed that the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants which is pending adjudication and in that suit, defendants, contested the suit by filing written statement wherein factum with regard to existence of Gair Mumkin Rasta between the land of plaintiff and the defendants has been denied. However, in the present suit, defendants have taken altogether a contrary plea by claiming that there is a path between the land of the plaintiff and the defendants. Crossexamination of aforesaid witness clearly reveals that the relations inter se plaintiff and defendants are not very good on account of pending litigation inter se them. This witness also admitted in her cross-examination that Panchayats were convened and upon demarcation, pillars were fixed at spot. She further stated that the President of Gram Panchayat stated that pillars have been wrongly erected on the path. She admitted that pillars were erected by plaintiff on her own land but during demarcation, pillars on one side were found to be standing on path. This witness further deposed that the plaintiff had filed suit because defendants had uprooted pillars at the spot. She admitted that quarrel took place inter se plaintiff and the defendants on account of pillars erected on path. This witness further deposed that the plaintiff had filed suit because defendants had uprooted pillars at the spot. She admitted that quarrel took place inter se plaintiff and the defendants on account of pillars erected on path. She further stated that no written statement has been filed by her in the present case. Interestingly, this witness admitted that pillars erected by plaintiff on the spot were uprooted by defendants and as such, suit has been filed. 13. It is quite apparent from bare reading of statement made by DW-1, Pushpa that there is dispute inter se plaintiff and the defendants qua the path existing between the lands of plaintiff and defendants. Prior to filing of suit at hand, Panchayat was convened and pillars were found to have been erected on path. Since defendants uprooted the pillars erected by plaintiff, she approached the court in the instant proceedings and as such, it cannot be said at no point of time, defendants made effort to encroach over the land or extend threats to the plaintiff. Similarly admission on the part of DW1 that defendants uprooted pillars erected by plaintiff clearly establishes that the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit at hand. 14. If the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are read in conjunction, they clearly establish the factum with regard to ownership of the plaintiff qua the suit land, and existence of disputed path adjoining to the land of the defendants, which is admittedly at 100-150 metres away from path in question. Copy of Jamabandi Ext. P1 produced on record suggests that the suit land is owned and possessed by plaintiff and defendants have no concern with the suit land and as such, plaintiff has rightly claimed that the defendants in the absence of any right, title and interest have no right to interfere in her peaceful possession over the suit land. 15. Though the defendants have denied aforesaid allegation of the plaintiff but have categorically admitted that there is path between land of the plaintiff and the defendants, which is on Government land. As per defendants path is intended to be grabbed by the plaintiff but no evidence has been led on record by the defendants to prove blockage/obstruction if any by the plaintiff over Government path, which is being used by defendants and other inhabitants of village to go to their fields. As per defendants path is intended to be grabbed by the plaintiff but no evidence has been led on record by the defendants to prove blockage/obstruction if any by the plaintiff over Government path, which is being used by defendants and other inhabitants of village to go to their fields. Presumption of truth is attached to Jamabandi, which shows that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land. Defendants have failed to rebut entries existing in favour of plaintiff in the revenue record and as such, no illegality can be found in the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, holding plaintiff to be owner-in-possession of the suit land. 16. Copy of map Ext. D7 produced on record clearly shows that adjoining to suit land path owned by the Government of Himachal Pradesh exists over Khasra Nos. 640 and 647 i.e. as per Ext. D1 Jamabandi. Beyond Khasra No. 640 there is Khasra No. 641. Aforesaid map has been produced by defendants and there is no dispute inter se parties that there is a path between the lands of the plaintiff and the defendants, rather, DW-1 admitted in her statement that the demarcation was made and pillars were erected on suit land. This witness stated in her statement that during demarcation on one side pillar was found to be erected on path and defendants asked plaintiff to demolish that pillar. Once defendants admitted that dispute regarding erection of pillars on the suit land and government path coupled with the fact that she categorically deposed that the defendants uprooted the pillars erected by plaintiff on the path and as such, obstruction/interference allegedly caused by the defendants on land owned and possessed by plaintiff stands duly proved, thus, the learned courts below cannot be said to have committed any illegality in decreeing the suit. 17. Interestingly, DW-1 admitted that in earlier case, dispute inter se parties was with regard to pillars and path and her land is not adjoining to the suit land. She also admitted that they filed a case under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the plaintiff and her husband and daughter, which is pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Una. She also admitted that they filed a case under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the plaintiff and her husband and daughter, which is pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Una. Besides above, there is ample material on record that on account of dispute inter se parties qua the path, which is not on land of the plaintiff, complaint was filed with the police. Ext. D1 is Jamabandi of Khasra Nos. 2373/632, 2377/639, 640 and 647, which shows that aforesaid land is in the ownership and possession of Government. Ext. D2 is Jamabandi of Khasra Nos. 676 and 678, which has no concern with present suit. Ext. D3 is Jamabandi of Khasra Nos. 2381/642, 2382/642 and 2383/642, which is shown to be in the ownership of defendants alongwith other co-shares. Ext. D4 is Jamabandi of Khasra Nos. 2379/641 and 2380/641, which is owned and possessed by the defendants alongwith other co-sharers. Similarly Exts. D5 and D6 are Jamabandis of land which has no relevance in the case at hand. Ext. D7 is Aks Musabi, which shows that there exists Khasra Nos. 640, between the land of the plaintiff and the defendants and is owned by Government of Himachal Pradesh. 18. Since the plaintiff by leading cogent and convincing evidenced has successfully proved on record that the defendants have uprooted pillars erected by plaintiff on her land, after demarcation, both the learned courts below rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Once DW-1 specifically stated that path exists on the land of the plaintiff, which statement of her is contrary to pleadings and revenue record, factum with regard to interference being caused by defendants in the suit land stands established and as such, learned courts below rightly decreed the suit. 19. Having perused entire evidence, this court finds no illegality of infirmity in judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below, which otherwise appear to be based on proper appreciation of evidence led on record by the respective parties, hence, no interference is called for. 20. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. . 21. Now, it would be appropriate to deal with the specific objection raised by the learned counsel representing the defendants with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction of this Court, while examining concurrent findings of law and facts returned by both the Courts below. 20. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. . 21. Now, it would be appropriate to deal with the specific objection raised by the learned counsel representing the defendants with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction of this Court, while examining concurrent findings of law and facts returned by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the defendants, invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for reappreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained." (p.269) 22. Perusal of the judgment, referred hereinabove, suggests that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. There can be no quarrel (dispute) with regard to aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court and true it is that in normal circumstances High Court, while exercising powers under Section 100 CPC, is restrained from re-appreciating the evidence available on record. 23. There can be no quarrel (dispute) with regard to aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court and true it is that in normal circumstances High Court, while exercising powers under Section 100 CPC, is restrained from re-appreciating the evidence available on record. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Parminder Singh versus Gurpreet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2009, decided on 25.7.2017, has held as under: "14) In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the three courts on facts, which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken by the three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court. Indeed, such findings were equally binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal." 24. It is quite apparent from aforesaid exposition of law that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the learned Courts below can not be interfered with unless same are found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings. In the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail, there is no perversity as such in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence as such, deserve to be upheld. 25. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, I find no merit in the appeal at hand, which is accordingly dismissed. Judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are upheld. 26. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.