JUDGMENT : The plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 15-1 of 2004 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, H.P. In the afore Civil suit, the plaintiff, claimed the hereinafter extracted relief(s):- “(i) defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. (ii) By way of mandatory injunction, the defendant may be required to get the entries in the record of right brought up to date inconformity with the claim of the plaintiff. (iii) In case, the plaintiff is found have been dispossessed from any portion of the land in suit in that event, a decree be passed for possession on the basis of title.” The learned trial court through its verdict made thereon, on 16.10.2009, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 2. In an appeal carried thereagainst by the aggrieved plaintiff, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter through its verdict made on 22.11.2012, upon, Civil Appeal No. 2-S/13 of 2010, dismissed the afore appeal, and, affirmed the judgement and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court 3. Consequently, the plaintiff is led to institute the extant appeal before this Court. 4. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, it became admitted, on 23.08.2021, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, have been wrongly applied by both the learned Courts below, and also whether mandate of Order 9, Rule 7 CPC and the mandate of Article 58 of the Limitation Act were not applicable to the lis at hand? 2. Whether the plaintiff's suit for injunction is maintainable as and when cause of action arises and when the plaintiff became aware of threats to his possession over the suit land? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2. 5. The plaintiff acquired a valid title to the suit property, through a testamentary disposition made in his favour by one Devaku. The validity of the afore testamentary disposition, did not, come to be challenged by the defendants. Though, through the testamentary disposition (supra), as made in favour of the plaintiff by one Devaku, and, to which Ex.PW4/A becomes ascribed, the legatee therein, who is the plaintiff herein, evidently acquired title to 10 bighas and 3 biswas of land, hitherto owned as co-owner by deceased testatrix one Devaku. Though, through the testamentary disposition (supra), as made in favour of the plaintiff by one Devaku, and, to which Ex.PW4/A becomes ascribed, the legatee therein, who is the plaintiff herein, evidently acquired title to 10 bighas and 3 biswas of land, hitherto owned as co-owner by deceased testatrix one Devaku. Moreover, with Ex.PW4/A, becoming proven by PW-5, one of the attesting witness thereto, and, wherethrough, the deceased testatrix one Devaku, bequeathed, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the suit land comprised in khata No. 6, Khatauni No.9, Khasra No,92/2 measuring 3 bighas, khasra No.94/3, measuring 5.6 bighas, 96/7 measuring 1.16 bighas, and, area measuring 2.18 bighas, out of khasra No.38, total measuring 10-3 bighas, thereupon at the stage of an order of mutation being attested by the Revenue officer concerned, rather the completest deference became enjoined to be meted thereto. However, through, the order of mutation as made on anvil of validly proven Will Ex.PW4/A, the legatee rather received only 5.2 bighas of land. In the face of the afore apparent discrepancies inter se the land bequeathed, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, through a validly proven testamentary disposition, borne in Ex.PW4/A, and, the order of mutation comprised in Ex.PW2/E-1, hence mutation No.55 borne in Ex.PW2/E-1, assumes at its inception invalidity in the eyes of law. Moreover, any corresponding thereto entries as carried in the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, do likewise garner no validity. Therefore, both supra are amenable for being quashed and set aside. 6. However, inter se the similar parties in the extant lis, and, also with respect to a similar subject matter, as contained in the extant lis, the plaintiff earlier instituted a civil suit bearing No. 121/1 of 1998, before the learned Sub Judge(2), Shimla. The afore civil suit, as unraveled by an order made thereon, on 17.01.2002, and, as becomes embodied in Ex.PW2/F, came to be dismissed in default. 7. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues with much vigour, before this Court, that the copy of the plaint as instituted earlier before the civil court concerned, and, whereon Mark A, is designated, is inadmissible in evidence. 7. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues with much vigour, before this Court, that the copy of the plaint as instituted earlier before the civil court concerned, and, whereon Mark A, is designated, is inadmissible in evidence. However, the afore made argument cannot be accepted, as Mark A is attested by the Examiner posted in the copying agency of the civil court concerned, and, when he exercised the empowered jurisdiction, as vested in him, under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, in his hence certifying it to be a true copy of the original plaint. Consequently, when hence Mark-A acquires a presumption truth, and, when no cogent evidence, has been adduced by the appellant, suggestive that the statutory endorsements made thereon are contradictory to one, as occurring in the original plaint. Therefore, the copy of the plaint as earlier instituted before the Civil Court, is admissible in evidence. Even otherwise, since the factum of admissibility of Ex.PW2/F enclosing therewithin, the order made on 17.1.2002, has not been challenged. Therefore, the solitary challenge to the admissibility of the plaint, to which mark-A designated, is merely a feeble and weak attempt, to override the play of the previous plaint instituted inter se the parties common to the extant lis, and to the earlier lis, besides when the suit khasra numbers in the earlier lis are common to the extant suit khasra numbers. Obviously thereupon the earlier verdict of dismissal of the plaintiff' suit, as comprised in Ex.PW2/F, does prima facie, bars, the re-institution of the extant suit at the instance of the plaintiff, unless instituted, within the prescribed period of limitation. 8. Evidently, the plaintiff, prima facie, did not within the period prescribed in the limitation Act, cast the appropriate motion before the learned trial Court, for the recalling of the order made on 17.01.2002, wherethrough, his suit was dismissed in default. However, he chose the alternative thereto valid mode of filing a fresh suit, on a similar cause of action, as becomes embodied in the earlier suit. The extant suit came to be instituted before the learned trial Court on 16.02.2004 hence after elapse of a period of two years, since the dismissal in default of his earlier suit, on 17.01.2002, by the learned trial Court concerned. 9. The extant suit came to be instituted before the learned trial Court on 16.02.2004 hence after elapse of a period of two years, since the dismissal in default of his earlier suit, on 17.01.2002, by the learned trial Court concerned. 9. The bitter and acerbic contest, which has emerged inter se the contesting litigants, is confined only to the applicability, vis-a-vis, the extant suit hence the provisions carried in Article 65 of the Limitation Act or whether the cause of action as accrued to the plaintiff, to file a simplicitor suit, for the making of a declaratory decree, for quashing the invalid order of mutation, and, for annulling the consequential thereto entries borne in the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, is, a period of three years. Conspicuously, when the relief of possession, being claimed in the alternative to the relief, of declaration (supra), has not been claimed, rather only a relief of injunction becomes espoused for becoming granted, thereupon(s) whether rather any valid dependence can be made upon Article (supra). As stated above, the declaratory relief though becomes encompassed in the relief, of mandatory injunction being made for the quashing or annulling, of, the relevant revenue entries, yet the import of asking for the relief of mandatory injunction (supra), is obviously connotative, of therethrough(s) a declaratory decree for the quashing, and, setting aside of the order of mutation, and, of the revenue entries, becoming espoused. Therefore, the extant civil suit is to be concluded to be filed hence for the making of a declaration qua the espoused annulments, and, settings asiderather being made. 10. Since, the further relief of permanent prohibitory injunction is also asked for. Therefore, the counsel for the defendant argues, that since in the earlier written statement instituted to the earlier plaint, a cloud became cast over the title of the plaintiff, over the suit land. Consequently, he contends, that when the earlier suit encompassed similar cause(s) of action, and, also covered the suit khasra numbers similar to the ones, as are encompassed in the extant suit, besides when the litigants in the earlier suit are common and similar to the ones in the suit at hand. Consequently, he contends, that when the earlier suit encompassed similar cause(s) of action, and, also covered the suit khasra numbers similar to the ones, as are encompassed in the extant suit, besides when the litigants in the earlier suit are common and similar to the ones in the suit at hand. Therefore, he contends that with the earlier written statement becoming instituted to the earlier plaint hence in September, 1998, thereupon, the plaintiff was enjoined to institute, the subsequent suit within three years from 1998, whereas, the extant suit becoming instituted beyond three years from 1998. As a sequel with the relief supra in the earlier suit, and, the relief in the extant suit being also similar, does entail, a further consequence that the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, and, of declaration, becoming completely barred by time, especially when relief of declaration is not accompanied by relief of possession. For omission (supra), he argues that the mandate of Article 65 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable to the extant simplictor suit for declaration. 11. Even though, stricto sensu, prima facie the defendants raised a cloud over the title of the plaintiff to the suit land, initially in the year 1998, through theirs proceeding to institute the earlier written statement to the earlier instituted plaint. However, since the institution of the subsequent suit, even without the plaintiff motioning the learned trial Court, for recalling and setting aside, the order made on 17.01.2002, hence, dismissing his earlier suit in default, is a validly recoursed endeavour. Therefore, when as aforestated the questioned revenue record, and, corresponding revenue entries are void ab inito and are also nonest, imperatively since their inception, given theirs being completely contradictory to the proven Will, as, borne in Ex.PW4/A, and, wherethroughs, the plaintiff became constituted a valid legatee to the suit land. Therefore, when as aforestated the questioned revenue record, and, corresponding revenue entries are void ab inito and are also nonest, imperatively since their inception, given theirs being completely contradictory to the proven Will, as, borne in Ex.PW4/A, and, wherethroughs, the plaintiff became constituted a valid legatee to the suit land. In sequel, this Court is leaned to conclude, that dehors the statute prescribing a period of three years, for a simplicitor declaratory suit being filed, for the quashing and setting aside, the questioned revenue entries, and, the period of limitation becoming enjoined to commence from the date of acquisition of knowledge, knowledge whereof, became acquired rather evidently in the year 1998, and, the suit being filed beyond the prescribed period of three year, yet would not render the extant suit, to become not covered by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, whereins, rather for the institution of a suit for declaration along with the relief of possession, rather the prescribed period is twelve years. This Court also dehors the plaintiff not claiming the relief of possession along with the relief of declaration, rather his claiming only the relief of injunction, thereupon the relief of possession, becomes also concluded to become encompassed therewithin, inasmuch as within the realm of obviously, the implied thereins relief of co-possession of the plaintiff along with defendants, over the joint suit land. Therefore, the extant suit becomes amenable for application thereto, hence the mandate carried in Article 65 of the limitation Act. Rieteratedly, the illegal assumption or usurpation, of evident lawful joint possession, of the plaintiff over the joint suit khasra numbers rather by the defendants, dehors, the earlier, thereto cloud over his title thereto being raised in 1998, by the defendants, becomes the predominant factor, for purveying leverage to the plaintiff, to re-canvass for the grant of relief of injunction, and, obviously also therewithin hence the relief of co-possession becomes also borne, on anvil, of his being a valid co-owner along with the other co-owners in the undivided suit property, imperatively since the makings of the void ab initio order of mutation, and, upto annulment thereof, conspicuously when the plaintiff(s) since its making rather became untenably ousted, vis-a-vis, his joint possession thereons. Since, the solemn principle governing the grant of relief of injunction, and/or co-possession, over undivided suit property, rather is comprised in, till the dismemberment(s) of the joint estate hence occurs, rather each co-owner holding unity of title and community of possession, on every inch of the undivided suit property. Consequently for undoing any breach, becoming caused to the afore norm(s), and, also for undoing the earlier thereto made hence illegal usurpation by the defendant of the joint possession with them, of the plaintiff, over the joint suit property, besides for undoing the untenable ouster of the plaintiff, from his apposite valid joint possession thereons, with the defendants, since the demise of the testatrix, therefore, his co-ownership along with his joint possession over the joint property, since then, with the defendants, hence is enjoined to become restored forthwith. Consequently, the declaratory relief when becomes necessarily coupled with the afore relief of co-possession, since the time of the apposite hitherto illegal assumption of joint possession, over the share of the plaintiff in the joint suit property, rather by the defendant(s). In sequitur, the relief of injunction also does reiteratedly hold traits, and, elements, of, relief of co-possession, to the extent of the precise, and, accurate quantum of the share of the plaintiff, in the undivided suit property, in respect whereof, his joint possession thereons, with the defendants, has been illegally usurped since the demise of the testatrix. As a corollary, and, reiteratedly a period of 12 years prescribed in Article 65 of the Limitation Act, for relief of declaration, and, for co-possession, for reasons (supra) does become attracted, vis-a-vis, the extant lis. 12. In summa, the plaintiff's suit both for declaration, and, for the afore genre, of co-possession along with other co-owners over the joint suit land, became validly institutable, even beyond a period of three years from 1998, and, whereat the defendants raised an untenable cloud, over the title of the plaintiff over the suit land. 13. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court, as well as, by the learned trial Court are not based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned courts below have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 14. While rendering the findings, both the learned courts below have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is merit in the extant appeal, and, it is allowed. In sequel, the concurrently judgments and decrees, rendered by both the learned Court below are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, and, the plaintiff is held co-owner, in consonance with Will (supra),and, in joint possession of the land comprised in Khata No.19, Khatauni No.23, Khasra Nos. 113/38, 92/2, 94/3 and 96/7, kita-4, measuring 10.3 bighas, situated at Mauza Neen, Pargana Karoli, Sub Tehsil Junga, District Shimla, H.P., and, entries in the revenue record contrary to the afore are null and void. Further the defendants are restrained from interfering in the joint possession with them, of the plaintiff over the suit land, in any manner. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.