JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiff Bidhi Chand/respondent herein (for short the plaintiff) instituted a Civil Suit No. 66/2001, before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. In the afore suit, the plaintiff claimed the makings of the hereinafter extracted relief(s), against the defendant Satish Kumar/appellant herein (for short “the defendant’). “(A) Suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction in the land marked as ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ ‘D’ ‘E’ ‘F’ in the site plan land comprising in khata No. 78 min Khatauni No. 167 min Khasra No. 389 land measuring 0-14-72 Hects situated in Mohal Karyal Khera Mouza Kaloha Sub-Tehsil Rakkr District Kangra; (B) Suit for vacant possession of House marked as ‘G’ ‘H’ ‘J’ ‘K’ situated over khasra No. 389. Value of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction for relief ‘A’ is Rs. 130/-. Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction for relief ‘B’ is Rs.1500/-.” 2. The learned trial Court through its verdict recorded on 31.12.2005 decreed the plaintiff’s suit (supra). 3. The aggrieved there-from defendant, constituted there against Civil Appeal No. 20-G/XIII/2006 before the learned District Judge, Kangra, H.P. The learned first Appellate Court through its verdict recorded on 12.11.2008 declined to interfere with the judgment and decree, as, become earlier recorded by the learned trial Court, and, obviously hence affirmed and maintained the verdict, as, become recorded by the learned trial Court. The aggrieved defendant is led to constitute there-against, the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 4. When the instant appeal came up for admission before this Court, this Court admitted this appeal on 25.5.2009, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the findings of both the Courts below that the property is not ancestral coparcenary property are illegal, erroneous and perverse recorded by ignoring material admissions made by plaintiff-respondent as PW-1 and his another witness PW-2? Were not the admission made by the plaintiff-respondent and his witnesses conclusive proof of real nature of the property? 2. Whether both the Courts below have acted in excess of their jurisdiction and committed grave error of law in misreading the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, DW-1 and DW-2 which if read properly would have led to irresistible conclusion that the property belongs to joint family property and has been succeeded by male lineal descendent? 2. Whether both the Courts below have acted in excess of their jurisdiction and committed grave error of law in misreading the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, DW-1 and DW-2 which if read properly would have led to irresistible conclusion that the property belongs to joint family property and has been succeeded by male lineal descendent? Are not the findings of both the Courts below illegal, erroneous and perverse in recording that the defendant has no right to possess the suit property which belongs to his great grand father? 3. Whether both the Courts below have ignored the documentary evidence especially DW-1/A and DW-1/B coupled with the testimonies of plaintiff and defendant proving that the possession of defendant appellant over the disputed house was in the capacity as owner, when it was clearly admitted that there had not been any partition and the revenue record clearly proved that the property was succeeded by plaintiff from his ancestors? Have not both the Courts below acted in an erroneous and perverse manner to decree the suit for possession which was not at all maintainable?” Substantial questions of law:- 5. The suit land, as, comprised in khata No. 78 min, Khatoni No. 167 min, Khara No. 389, land measuring 0-14-72 hects, situated in Mohal Karyal Khera, Mouza Kaloha, Sub Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. is admitted in the plaint, and, as is also echoed in Ex. P-1, exhibit whereof is Jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, as abadi deh. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved defendant has with extreme vehemence, at his command, made dependence upon Ex. D-5, exhibit whereof is the “Nakal Shajra Nasab”, appertaining to the predecessors-in-interest of the contesting litigants. He submits that, since the suit land devolved, vis-à-vis, Bidhi Chand, in an uninterrupted or unbroken chain, from his three ancestors, thereupon the suit land acquires the trait of it being a coparcenery property, and, that until dismemberment thereof occurs through metes and bounds, hence thereupto, the defendant was hence a co- coparcener therein, and, could not be deprived of his right to co-possess the suit/house property alongwith the plaintiff. 7. The afore made submission is well rested, as, the plaintiff in his deposition embodied in his cross-examination, has admitted the afore factum. However, the reflections in Ex. 7. The afore made submission is well rested, as, the plaintiff in his deposition embodied in his cross-examination, has admitted the afore factum. However, the reflections in Ex. P-1 qua the suit land being “Abadi Deh”, carries an apt signification, and, as evidently borne in the column of ownership thereof, wherein also the word “Abadi Deh” occurs, that hence the entire village proprietary body, rather holding a right, to, raise construction upon the land described as “Abadi Deh”, in the jamabandi concerned. 8. The making of the afore construction, to the description of the suit land as made in Ex. P-1, in as much as therein, it being recorded as “Abadi Deh”, does spur a further inference, that neither of the contesting litigants can stake any claim for absolute title as owners thereof. Contrarily the litigants concerned, who raise Abadi, on the land described in the jambandi as “Abadi Deh”, only hold, a right of valid possession(s) over the land described in the jamabandi concerned, as “Abadi Deh”, and, not as stated supra as absolute owners thereof. Moreover, in case a person holding a abadi adjoining or adjunct whereto also an abadi exists, and, is possessed by some other persons, thereupon both can mutually through a deed of conveyance acquire possession thereof. 9. Even if the afore permissible mode of conveyance inter-se persons holding possession of adjoining abadi(s), can though become recoursed. Moreover, even if hence therefrom, the inference (supra), that qua any land described in the jamabandi, as “Abadi Deh”, thereupon hence the persons concerned, who raise constructions thereon, do not hold any absolute title rather they hold only valid possession thereof, may become somewhat effaced. 10. Be that as it may, since the element of absolute ownership is amiss, vis-à-vis, possession of persons over land described in the jamabandi as “Abadi Deh”, save and except, any persons’ possessions adjoining to the “Abadi Deh”, and, the said other person(s), rather choosing to alienate his raised construction thereon, to an apposite co-abadi possessor, through his executing a registered deed of conveyance, vis-à-vis, him. Therefore, with only the afore working as an exception, to, the general principle (supra), as, embodied, vis-à-vis, the afore land described in the revenue records, as “Abadi Deh”. Consequently, when as stated (supra), when only a ripened right of lawful possession inheres in persons, who hold possession over property described in the Jamabandi as “Abadi Deh”. Therefore, with only the afore working as an exception, to, the general principle (supra), as, embodied, vis-à-vis, the afore land described in the revenue records, as “Abadi Deh”. Consequently, when as stated (supra), when only a ripened right of lawful possession inheres in persons, who hold possession over property described in the Jamabandi as “Abadi Deh”. As a corollary when rather the prime principle, regulating the concept of ancestral coparcenery property, becomes rather rested, upon an absolute valid title in the suit land, coming into the hand(s) of the last male holder from his previous three generations. Therefore, the latter obviously remains completely unaccomplished vis-à-vis Abadi Deh lands. The apt sequel thereof, is that the defendant could not claim over the land described in the jamabandi as “Abadi Deh” any right of his holding any co-possession alongwith his father i.e. the plaintiff, unless of course with his volition. However, any assertion of the defendant, to claim co-possession alongwith his father, over the suit land, described in the revenue records as “Abadi Deh”, would become well rested, only upon evidence existing on record, and, its displaying, that he solitarily from his expenses raised construction over the “Abadi Deh”. However, since there is potent evidence on record, and its displaying, that the old house of Jaind, had collapsed and thereafter construction became raised by the plaintiff in the year 1960-1965. Further, when the afore evidence, as, testified by the plaintiff is supported by PW-2 (Sita Ram), who had raised the afore construction, and, with the defendant’s counsel, during his subjecting him to cross-examination rather failing to elicit from him any echoing, for hence falsifying the afore factum as becomes testified by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is concluded to raise construction, on old lines in the year 1965 after the collapsing of the house existing thereon, rather with his expending money(s). Consequently, the defendant, his son, cannot obstruct the plaintiff his father, from entering into the house existing over the suit land nor also in case he has taken possession of the same, he can validly resist the making of a decree of possession, as become validly passed against him, in the concurrent verdicts as made by both the Court below. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. There is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned verdict(s) are maintained an affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. There is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned verdict(s) are maintained an affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Records be sent back.