The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence to establish ownership and possession in an injunction case, and the consideration of the binding effect of a previous judgment and decree on the defendants.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit khasra number(s), was, hence decreed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful ownership and possession, from cutting trees and changing the nature of the suit land. IN alternative, relief of possession had also been prayed for. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was exclusive owner and in possession of the suit land. The defendants being forceful persons were inimical towards the plaintiff. The suit land had properly been demarcated and boundaries had been fixed at the spot. When the plaintiff had started raising construction, the defendants pelted stones at him and his labour. Cause of action accrued on 11.01.2008 when the defendants created hindrance in the construction work of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants No.1 to 4 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, cause of action, valuation, jurisdiction and estoppel. On merits, the contents of the plaint were denied It was asserted that the plaintiff was not exclusive owner of the suit land. He had purchased the land from Lekh Ram son of Kirpa Ram. Lekh Ram had sought partition of the land measuring 7.1 bighas, comprised in Khasra No.177/1 and the partition order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade was set aside by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sadar, Bilaspur, on 10.03.1998, the suit land was in the joint possession of the parties and was not maintainable against the other co-owners. It was also asserted that revenue entries were wrong and illegal. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. He was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction, as he had not approached the court with clean hands.

4. Defendant No.5 filed separate written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, suppression of facts etc. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits and prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. The plaintiff filed replication(s) to the written statement(s) of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD.

5. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.

6. Relief.

7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court hence decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendants/appellants herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

8. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 5.10.2016, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Wh