JUDGMENT : The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 138/98/97 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. In the afore suit, the plaintiffs claimed the making of hereinafter extracted relief(s), vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, and, against the defendants: “It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the above submissions, it be declared that the plaintiffs are also joint owners in possession of the suit land qua the share of Smt. Purnu deceased, which their predecessor-in-interest had inherited vide mutation No. 424, dated 23.12.1977 and which has been wrongly recorded in the exclusive name of Moti Ram deceased while preparing the jamabandi for the year1981-82 and repeated in the subsequent jamabandies, which entries are totally wrong, illegal, incorrect, null and void and liable to be struck off and corrected and plaintiffs are entitled for the allotment of land to them during consolidation of holdings which their predecessor-in-interests had inherited from Smt. Purnu Devi deceased and wrongly allotted to Moti Ram or defendant and their joint possession thereof be confirmed and defendant be restrained from interfering therein, and a decree to the above effect with costs of the suit, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, and/or any other relief, warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case, under consideration, be granted and justice be done.” 2. The trial Judge, through his decision made, on 05.11.2003, upon the Civil Suit (supra), decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. 3. The aggrieved defendant(s) carried there against Civil Appeal bearing No. 24/2004, 136/2005, before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court, through its decision made, on 28.07.2008, upon the Civil Appeal (supra), dismissed the appeal, and, obviously affirmed and maintained the judgment and decree, as became pronounced earlier by the learned trial Court. 4. The defendant, becoming aggrieved from the afore drawn concurrent verdicts, by both the learned Courts below, hence instituted Regular Second Appeal, bearing No. RSA No. 478 of 2008, before this Court. 5. When the afore Regular Second Appeal, came before this Court on 18.09.2008, it came to be admitted on substantial questions of law No. 1 and 3, occurring at page No. 5 of the paper book, substantial questions of law whereof become extracted hereinafter: “1. Whether both the Courts below have misread misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties especially documents Ext. Whether both the Courts below have misread misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties especially documents Ext. DA order dated 22.08.1992 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, document Ext. DW3/ A application for correction of revenue entries which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own act and conduct as they have knowledge about revenue entries when the filed the application for correction of revenue entries which was dismissed on 22.08.1992? 6. The suit property became inherited, by the four sons of Ganga Ram, namely, Dila Ram, Sunder Lal, Mastu Ram and Moti Ram. Mutation No. 424, become attested on demise of deceased Purnu Devi. The afore order of mutation became attested on 23.12.1977. Plaintiffs No. 1 to 6, are the legal heirs of Dila Ram, whereas, plaintiffs No. 7 and 8, are the legal heirs of Sunder Lal. Moreover, proforma defendants No. 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of Mastu Ram deceased. The defendant is the legal heir of deceased Moti Ram. However, the Patwari Halka concerned, while preparing jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, rather for the year 1981-82, rather, made evident departures from the afore order, of, mutation bearing No.424. Though, the defendant-appellant acquiesce about the validity of the drawing of mutation No. 424, dated 23.12.1977, yet, entries in the jamabandi for the year (supra), did not come to be made in the completest consonance thereof. Consequently, the afore erroneous drawing of the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, and, arising from the order (supra), evidently resulted in a quantum increase of the share of the defendant, in the suit land, which he derived therein, from Moti Ram, and, also resulted in, a, gross reduction and subtraction of the interests of the plaintiffs, and, of the proforma defendant(s), all of whom derive their respective shares, in the suit land, respectively, from Dila Ram, Sunder Lal, and, Mastu. 7. The afore made entries became obviously concurrently declared, by both the learned Courts below to be completely vitiated. 8. Be that as it may, both the learned Courts below also repelled the contention of the defendant, qua, his acquiring title to the suit land, through adverse possession. 7. The afore made entries became obviously concurrently declared, by both the learned Courts below to be completely vitiated. 8. Be that as it may, both the learned Courts below also repelled the contention of the defendant, qua, his acquiring title to the suit land, through adverse possession. Since the afore extracted substantial questions of law, do not, cover the afore invalidation of the defendant’s plea, hence by concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the learned Courts below. Therefore, the afore made findings adversarial to the defendant acquire(s) the completest vigour nor it is imperative to delve into the afore nor to adjudicate, upon, the merits of the afore made concurrent findings, as appertaining to the factum (supra). 9. The substantial questions of law (supra), devolve upon, the maintainability of Civil Suit (supra), before the learned trial Judge concerned, inasmuch as, it being filed therebefore, rather beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The afore plea become rested, upon, the factum that despite, admittedly during the course of drawing, of, consolidation proceedings, in the Halka concerned, rather in the year 1989-90, hence partition of the suit land, and, separate allotment(s) thereof occurring. Therefore, it is contended that the extant suit became enjoined to be filed, within three years thereafter, especially when the plaintiffs, in the year 1989-90, acquired knowledge about the misallotments, and, underallotments, of the suit land, to them, during the course of proceedings supra. Contrarily, the extant suit becoming instituted beyond three years therefrom. Therefore, the extant suit is contended to be clearly outside the afore prescribed period of limitation. The suit became instituted, hence for the quashing and annulment, of revenue entries in the jamabandies, appertaining to the year 1981-82, and, also for annulment of entries in the jamabandies prepared in pursuance to partition(s) being made, during consolidation operation(s). Moreover, it is also contended, that since the plaintiffs preferred, an application for correction of the apposite revenue entries, application whereof, is embodied in Ext.DW3/A. The afore application became instituted, on, 1991. Moreover, with an order being made thereon, on, 22.08.1992, and, as becomes borne in Ext. DA. Therefore, it is argued, that even from the order, of, 22.08.1992, the extant suit, claiming therein, the relief supra, rather enjoined its institution within three years therefrom. Moreover, with an order being made thereon, on, 22.08.1992, and, as becomes borne in Ext. DA. Therefore, it is argued, that even from the order, of, 22.08.1992, the extant suit, claiming therein, the relief supra, rather enjoined its institution within three years therefrom. However, the suit becoming instituted beyond three years therefrom, inasmuch as, in the year 1997, thereupon, the extant suit is contended to be barred by limitation. 10. The afore drawn argument, before this Court is completely fallacious. The reason for making, the afore conclusion, becomes drawn from the factum, that even though apposite knowledge of the plaintiffs, vis-a-vis, occurrence of fallacious entries, borne in the jamabandies appertaining to the suit land, and, relating to the year, 1981-82, and, visàvis, the ones which occurred in the subsequent jamabandi, did arise in the year 1989-90, and, also the knowledge of the plaintiffs about the making of, a, dis-affirmative order by the learned Assistant Collector concerned, upon, their application for correction of erroneous revenue entries, did arise in 1992. However, any deriving(s) of apposite knowledge by the plaintiffs, about the fallacious revenue entries, in the years supra, does became meaningless, hence with this Court, declaring them void ab initio, conspicuously, when they are made in the completest disharmony, vis-a-vis, mutation No. 424, attested in the year, 1977. 11. Since, the aforestated, revenue entries, as, made with the complete disharmony with the mutation (supra), and, rather sequeled, a, gross increase in the interest of the defendant in the suit land, and, also concomitantly, brought a gross reduction, in the interest of the plaintiffs, and, of the proforma defendant(s), in the suit land. Therefore, the vice of voidness, in the name of making, all the afore entries, did continue to persist, and prevail, also even at the time of drawing of consolidation proceedings, and also, upto conclusions thereof. Moreover, the allotment(s) through partition, as made during course thereof, rather exclusively to the defendant, and, to the ouster of the plaintiffs, do also obviously, become stained with the vice of voidness. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant, on making the afore address, has rested it upon Ext. Moreover, the allotment(s) through partition, as made during course thereof, rather exclusively to the defendant, and, to the ouster of the plaintiffs, do also obviously, become stained with the vice of voidness. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant, on making the afore address, has rested it upon Ext. DW3/ A, filed in the year 1991, and, whereat, a dis-affirmative order, became pronounced, on, 22.08.1992, and, he obviously contends that the relevant period of three years, for the institution of the extant declaratory suit, was to be computed from the date of order becomes pronounced thereon, inasmuch as, from 22.08.1992. However, the afore contention is rejected. The reason being, that he has remained completely oblivious, to, the factum that all the entries carried in the jamabandies, are, void ab initio. Moreover, he has remained completely unmindful, of, the factum that, apart from the declaratory relief, as becomes claimed, in the extant suit, a further relief of permanent prohibitory injunction also becomes espoused. The effect of the afore declaratory relief, becoming, hence combined with the relief of injunction, is that, it is connotative of the plaintiffs seeking joint possession alongwith the defendant, in the suit land, since the time of preparation of jamabandi appertaining to the year, 1981-82, whereat, the suit land, remained undivided and unpartitioned. The principle governing the grant of relief of injunction, is embodied in the canon, that since occurrence of partition, through metes and bounds, amongst the co-owners concerned, rather thereupto, each co-owner holding unity of title and community of possession, over every inch of the undivided properties. Consequently, even if the defendant had untenably increased his share in the joint suit land, through the questioned void ab initio revenue entries, becoming drawn by the Patwari concerned, in the jamabandi concerned, yet, he throughout continued to hold possession, even of the plaintiffs’ share, hence in the undivided suit property. Moreover, the plaintiffs and proforma defendant(s) concerned, could not be deprived of their joint possession alongwith the defendant, in the undivided suit property, especially when, upto dismemberment of the joint estate, through metes and bounds, rather each co-owner held unity of title, and, community of possession, over the undivided suit land. Moreover, the plaintiffs and proforma defendant(s) concerned, could not be deprived of their joint possession alongwith the defendant, in the undivided suit property, especially when, upto dismemberment of the joint estate, through metes and bounds, rather each co-owner held unity of title, and, community of possession, over the undivided suit land. Therefore, the relief of injunction, is co-equivalent to the relief of joint possession, of the plaintiffs alongwith the contesting defendant, over the undivided suit land, hence, since the year 1981-82, and lasting upto 1989-90, whereat also, despite the principle (supra), appertaining to the jointness of the suit land, obviously surviving, inasmuch as, till a valid dismemberment of the suit property, through metes and bounds, hence occurring, thereupto, each co-owner holding unity of title and community of possession, over every inch of the undivided property(ies). The afore principle became evidently breached, by the consolidation staff concerned, as they visibly flouted, the mandate of a valid order of mutation No. 424, made in the year 1977. Therefore, the effect of the afore invalid, almost complete ouster of the plaintiffs from the suit land, does also obviously, make the relief, of injunction, as claimed alongwith the declaratory relief (supra) to become construable, as, relief of co-possession over the suit land, of the plaintiffs, alongwith the contesting defendant. The effect of the afore made inference, is that, the extant suit, does not stricto sensu become, a, simplicitor suit, for declaration, for quashing the revenue entries concerned, but also is a suit for co-possession of the plaintiffs, alongwith the contesting defendant from the year 1981-82, and lasting upto the conclusion of the illegal consolidation operation(s), as became concluded, in the year, 1989-90. Moreover, it is also construable to be coequal to the relief of co-possession, even if, a dis-affirmative, rather became recorded, upon, Ex.DW3/A, by the Collector concerned. Further, the consequent effect of the afore inference, is that the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration, as well as for the afore relief of injunction, tantamount(s) to theirs, validly claiming co-possession alongwith the contesting defendants, over the suit khasra numbers, and, hence the suit was to be filed within 12 years, from 1989-90 or from 1990. Since, the suit has been filed within 12 years from the afore period of time, therefore, it is not barred by the vice of voidness nor is mis-constituted, rather is maintainable, before the learned trial Judge. Since, the suit has been filed within 12 years from the afore period of time, therefore, it is not barred by the vice of voidness nor is mis-constituted, rather is maintainable, before the learned trial Judge. Therefore, substantial questions of law are decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and, against the defendant. 13. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment(s) and decree(s) passed by the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications are disposed of accordingly. Records of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.