JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. 1. The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2007 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sarkaghat District Mandi in Civil Suit No. 243. 2. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit before the Ld. Trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from digging the suit land, using it as a path, projecting the eaves of their proposed house, or discharging water from their proposed house onto the suit land. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish any construction and restore the suit land to its original position if they succeeded in raising any construction during the pendency of the suit. It was pleaded that the suit land was recorded in the names of Om Prakash, Vidya Devi, and Ranjeet, and the plaintiff was recorded as being in possession as owner. The defendants, who were strangers to the suit land, were raising construction in Khasra No. 893/306 and had allegedly dug a portion of the suit land, damaging its boundaries. They were also threatening to extend their construction towards the suit land and discharge water onto it.Despite requests, they persisted, leading to the filing of the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, lack of cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, and incorrect mention of their village. On merits, they denied the plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the suit land, asserting that the plaintiff had no right to file the suit. They referred to an application moved by the plaintiff’s sons before the Ld. Assistant Collector Grade-15, Sarkaghat, for correction of revenue entries, wherein the plaintiff had allegedly admitted that he was not in possession of the suit land. The defendants claimed that they were constructing on their own land and that a public path existed over the suit land, which had been used by them and the public since time immemorial. They further alleged that the plaintiff and his son had executed an agreement to sell a portion of the suit land (one biswas) to the defendants for Rs. They further alleged that the plaintiff and his son had executed an agreement to sell a portion of the suit land (one biswas) to the defendants for Rs. 10,000/- as advance, with possession already delivered, thereby divesting the plaintiff of any rights over the land. 4. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the plaint’s averments. The Ld.Trial Court framed the following issues on 04.12.2004: 1. Whether the plaintiff, being the owner in possession of the suit land, is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether there exists a public path through Khasra No. 187 (suit land) since time immemorial, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Whether the village of the defendants has wrongly been mentioned as Kher, but the defendants are residing at village Lower Barot? 6. Relief. 5. The parties led their respective evidence, with the plaintiff examining himself as PW-1, Krishn Devi as PW-2, and Dinesh Kamal as PW-3. The defendants examined Krishan Chand (Defendant No. 1) as DW-1, Khayali Ram as DW-2, Kanwar Singh as DW-3, and Tulsi Ram as DW-4. 6. The Ld. Trial Court held that the plaintiff had successfully proved his ownership and possession of the suit land, while the defendants failed to establish the existence of a public path over the suit land used since time immemorial. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this judgment, the defendants preferred the present appeal, contending that the Ld. Trial Court had misappreciated the evidence, particularly the admission of witnesses regarding the existence of the path and the spot map. They argued that their construction over the suit land was duly proved and that the injunction was unjustified. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was also filed by the appellants to produce the agreement dated 17.11.2003. 7. After hearing, Ld. Counsel for the appellants, and Ld. Counsel for the respondent, this Court considered the submissions. The appellants argued that the Ld. Trial Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, particularly regarding the existence of the path, and sought the setting aside of the judgment. The respondent, however, supported the judgment, contending that no interference was warranted. 8. After hearing, Ld. Counsel for the appellants, and Ld. Counsel for the respondent, this Court considered the submissions. The appellants argued that the Ld. Trial Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, particularly regarding the existence of the path, and sought the setting aside of the judgment. The respondent, however, supported the judgment, contending that no interference was warranted. 8. Upon consideration of the material on record and the arguments advanced, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal, leading to the filing of the present second appeal. 9. The plaintiff never pleaded that he was the owner of the suit land but instead claimed to be in possession as a non- occupancy tenant. The copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 corroborates this claim, showing the plaintiff recorded as a non-occupancy tenant, and this document carries a presumption of correctness. DW-1 Krishan Chand, in his examination-in-chief, admitted that the land bearing Khasra No. 187 belonged to the plaintiff. This indicates that the defendants did not dispute the plaintiff’s connection to the suit land. Furthermore, the defendants themselves admitted the plaintiff’s title by asserting that they had purchased the land from the plaintiff and his sons. This plea itself demonstrates an acknowledgment of the plaintiff’s rights over the land, as there would have been no necessity to claim such a transaction if the plaintiff had no title. 10. The plaintiff’s assertion of possession was duly supported by the jamabandi and his witnesses. The defendants led no evidence to disprove the plaintiff’s possession. It is undisputed that the defendants were constructing on adjacent land, and in such circumstances, the plaintiff’s apprehension of interference with the suit land cannot be dismissed as baseless. Such apprehension is sufficient grounds to seek an injunction from the court. Moreover, DW-1 Krishan Chand admitted in cross-examination that he transported construction material over the suit land, which establishes that the defendants were indeed interfering with it. Since a person in lawful possession is entitled to protect his possession, the plaintiff was justified in seeking injunctive relief. 11. Thus, the courts below correctly and concurrently held that the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction, and no fault can be found with their judgments. 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Thus, the courts below correctly and concurrently held that the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction, and no fault can be found with their judgments. 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.