JUDGMENT : The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit, bearing No.40/1 of 2014, before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. In the afore civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed the making of a declaratory decree, for setting aside the deed of relinquishment, bearing No. 307, of, 2.8.1999, executed by Puran Chand, vis-à-vis, suit khasra Nos, and, qua the defendants. The plaintiffs afore suit became dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Sirmour, at Nahan, through a verdict made thereon on 30.12.2006. The aggrieved plaintiffs constituted, against the afore made verdict, of the learned trial Court, a civil appeal, bearing No. 8-N/13 of 2007, before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court, through its verdict, made upon Civil Appeal (supra), proceeded to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal and, obviously, affirmed the judgment and decree, as made by the learned trial Court concerned. 2. Against the afore concurrently recorded verdicts, as made by both the learned Courts below, the aggrieved plaintiffs instituted the instant appeal, before this Court. When RSA bearing No. 182 of 2008, came up for hearing, before this Court, on 31.3.2009, it came to be admitted, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and the pleadings of the parties and the finding that there was a valid relinquishment deed executed by Puran Chand which was not vitiated as a result of fraud and misrepresentation is sustainable in law? 2. Whether in view of the findings in civil suit No. 40/1 of 2004 and civil appeal No. 8-N/13 of 2007 in respect of the same property the same relinquishment deed that the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, suit was barred by limitation and the decree in the suit in respect of the second relinquishment deed the decree for injunction was not sustainable when the plaintiff was not in possession of the property? 3. Whether in view of the fact that defendant was in possession of the property and the plaintiff not in exclusive possession thereof, the suit for injunction was maintainable and decree is sustainable in law? 3. 3. Whether in view of the fact that defendant was in possession of the property and the plaintiff not in exclusive possession thereof, the suit for injunction was maintainable and decree is sustainable in law? 3. Moreover, civil suit No. 59/1 of 2004 was instituted before the learned trial Court, by one Desh Raj, claiming therein the relief, of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, being pronounced against the defendants, and, vis-à-vis, suit khasra Nos. The learned trial Judge, through its verdict made on 30.12.2006, upon the civil suit (supra) hence decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. The aggrieved defendants carried thereagainst civil appeal bearing No. 9-N/13 of 2007, before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court, through its verdict, made thereon, on 3.3.2008, dismissed the defendants’ appeal, and, obviously, affirmed and maintained the verdict hence decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit, as made by the learned trial judge concerned. The defendants are aggrieved from the afore concurrently made verdicts, by both, the learned Courts below, and, constituted before this Court, the instant regular second appeal, bearing No. 183 of 2008, which came to be admitted on the hereinafter substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse and based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence, more particularly, the basis documents of the title relinquishment deed Ext. PW1/B and D-1 and the compromise deed, statements of the parties and Decreesheet D-7,D-8 and D-6. 2. Whether in view of the fiduciary relations between Puran Chand and the defendant and the lack of independent advise before executing the relinquishment deed raised inference of undue influence, coercion and fraud and the judgment and decree in appeal is not sustainable? 3. Whether the Court below was justified in not drawing adverse inference against the defendant for his non-appearance as a witness and the findings are based on wrong assumptions in ignoring the admissions, particularly D-1, D-5, D-6,D-7 and D-8 whereby the other relinquishment deed was not accepted and matter compromised? SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 3. It is not disputed amongst the contesting litigants, that the suit properties, are ancestral coparcenery properties. Moreover, it is also not in dispute amongst the contesting litigants, that the deceased maker of the relinquishment deed, as executed by him, vis-à-vis, one of the defendants, held rights as co-owner, alongwith other co-sharers in the undivided suit property. It is not disputed amongst the contesting litigants, that the suit properties, are ancestral coparcenery properties. Moreover, it is also not in dispute amongst the contesting litigants, that the deceased maker of the relinquishment deed, as executed by him, vis-à-vis, one of the defendants, held rights as co-owner, alongwith other co-sharers in the undivided suit property. All the apposite co-owners are reflected in Ext. PW1/A, exhibit whereof is the Jamabandi, appertaining to the suit khasra Nos. Moreover, the maker of the contentious relinquishment deed, one Puran Chand, and, the defendant in whose favour, the disputed relinquishment deed, was executed, are real brothers. Therefore, unless it is proved on record, that the relinquishment deed, comprised in Ext. D-1, did not, come to be validly executed by deceased Puran Chand, thereupon, the afore Puran Chand, could validly cause conferment of title, through Ext. D-1, vis-à-vis, the defendant concerned. Consequently, it has to be gauged from the evidence on record, whether the valid execution of Ext. D-1, has been unflinchingly proven. In the afore endeavour, the son of defendant Desh Raj, one Shamsher Singh, stepped into the witness box, and, narrated in his affidavit, Ext. D-B, exhibit whereof came to be tendered in evidence, during the course of his examination-inchief, that deceased Puran Chand used to live with his daughter, who is married in Haryana. He also narrated therein that the wife of deceased, did not, live with the deceased, rather, she used to live in Haryana. Furthermore, he has made echoing(s) therein, that on 2.8.1999, the deceased alongwith Kreshni, went to Nahan. Alongwith the defendant, one Mam Raj, Ram Sarup and Jetho Ram, Numberdar, also went to Nahan. One Devender Singh, Advocate, is, deposed to be approached by the defendant, to prepare a relinquishment deed, qua the house of the afore deceased Puran Chand. The afore Devender Singh Advocate, is, further deposed to prepare the apposite relinquishment deed, and, after contents thereof, being read over and explained, in vernacular, to the afore Puran Chand, the latter, in the presence of the witnesses thereto, namely one Mam Raj, Ram Sarup and Jetho, appended his thumb impressions, upon Ext. D-1. Also, in the presence of the afore Puran Chand, the apposite witnesses thereto, made their respective thumb marks on Ext.D-1. Subsequently, Ext. D-1. Also, in the presence of the afore Puran Chand, the apposite witnesses thereto, made their respective thumb marks on Ext.D-1. Subsequently, Ext. D-1 was presented before Sub-Registrar, Nahan, who after inquiring from Puran Chand, vis-à-vis, the veracity of the contents of relinquishment deed, and, upon the afore inquiry, Puran Chand admitting that all the contents carried therein are truthful, hence proceeded to, after his ensuring the identification before him, of, Puran Chand, by Jethu, Numberdar, make all the relevant signatured statutory endorsements, on Ext. D-1. He also echoed in Ext. DB, that at the relevant time, deceased Puran Chand, was in a sound and disposing state of mind. Even though, he was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. However, in the afore endeavor, no elicitation, became un-earthed from him, vis-à-vis, any fraud or coercion, becoming exerted, upon one Puran Chand, in his executing Ext.D-1. The afore made deposition is, corroborated by the scribe of Ext. D-1, inasmuch as by DW-3, one Devender Singh, Advocate. 4. Moreover, DW-4, one Mam Raj, who is an attesting witnesses of Ext. D-1, completely supported, the version, as deposed earlier by both DW-3, and, DW-2. Consequently, since even during the course of the cross-examination of DW-4, nothing emerged from him, rather suggestive, that the deceased executant of Ext. D-1, one Puran Chand, at the relevant time, was not in a sound and disposing state of mind, nor when any elicitation emanated from him, rather suggestive that the thumb impressions, of, the afore, were not made by him, in the presence of DW-4, rather when he has also deposed, that after the deceased testator appending his thumb impressions, on Ext.D-1, his also appending his thumb marks thereon(s) hence, in the presence of the deceased executant. Therefore, this Court concludes, that the valid execution of Ext.D-1 has been unflinchingly proven. 5. Be that as it may, Ext. D-1, became registered by the Sub-Registrar concerned. On Ext. D-1 occur the sealed and signatured statutory endorsements, of the Sub-Registrar concerned, whereabove there occur(s) recitals, that only after the Sub-Registrar concerned, reading over and explaining in vernacular to Puran Chand, all the contents of Ext.D-1,and, also ensuring that all the contents carried therein being comprehended by Puran Chand, hence, his ensuring the making in his presence rather the apposite thumb impressions, on Ext. D-1, by Puran Chand,. D-1, by Puran Chand,. Therefore, the sealed and signatured statutory endorsements as made by the Sub-Registrar concerned, on Ext. D-1, do acquire completest evidentiary vigor. Conspicuously, when no evidence in rebuttal to the making of the afore sealed, and, signatured statutory endorsements, became hence adduced by the plaintiffs, nor when the identification, before the Sub-Registrar concerned, of, the deceased testator, by Jethu Numberdar, has been challenged. Consequently, the Court concludes, that the valid execution of Ext.D-1 has been completely proven. 6. The learned counsel for appellants submits, before this Court, that since in an earlier suit, interse litigants similar in the instant suit, and also, when in the earlier suit, rather similar to the extant suit property, hence, khasra Nos, became borne, and, whereupon a compromise, occurred before the Lok Adalat, compromise whereof is borne in Ext. D-6. Therefore, the learned counsel concerned argues that omission, on the part of the plaintiffs, to, in the earlier suit, make a challenge, upon the impugned relinquishment deed, constitutes a bar of estoppels(s), as becomes carried in order 2 Rule 2 CPC, against the plaintiffs, rather constituting the extant suit. However, the learned first appellate Court, in its verdict, made upon Civil Appeal No. 8-N/13 of 2007, made a conclusion that the afore bar is not attracted, as there exists no evidence on record, rather suggestive that the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 40/1 of 2004, were ever, in contemporaneity to the institution of the earlier suit or during pendency thereof, hence aware qua existence of the apposite relinquishment deed. Therefore, an inference became aroused that in contemporaneity to the institution of the earlier suit, or during its pendency, the plaintiffs were not aware of the existence of the impugned relinquishment deed, and, obviously could not at the afore phase cast any challenge thereto. Consequently, the learned first appellate Court aptly concluded, that the bar contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, is not attracted, vis-à-vis, the plaintiffs’ instant suit, and, thereafter, proceeded to reverse the findings contrary thereto, as became returned on the apposite issue, by the learned trial Judge. The afore made conclusion is well-founded, and, also does not warrant any interference from this Court. The afore made conclusion is well-founded, and, also does not warrant any interference from this Court. Consequently, substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2, carried in RSA No. 182 of 2008, are answered in favour of the defendant(s), and also substantial questions of law No. 1, 2 and 3 carried in RSA No. 183 of 2008, are, answered in favour of the plaintiffs and, against the defendant. Substantial questions of law with respect to the validity of decree of injunction, granted to the plaintiff, one Desh Raj in Civil Suit No. 59/1 of 2004 7. The suit property, is recorded in the apposite Jamabandi, to be co-owned by all the recorded co-owners. All the co-owners hold unity of title, and community of possession over every inch of the undivided suit property. 8. Assumingly, if the plaintiff, one Desh Raj is not in physical possession of the suit land, none of the recorded alongwith him hence co-owners or co-sharers in the undivided suit property, even if are holding physical possession thereof, cannot deny to Desh Raj the relief of injunction, nor can proceed to exclusively utilize rather to his complete ouster, any portion of the undivided suit property, nor can proceed to cause construction, upon any prime portion, of the undivided suit property, rather without the consent of other co-owners concerned. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in both the appeals, and, the same are dismissed. The impugned judgments and decrees, respectively, passed by both the Courts below, are affirmed and maintained. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.