The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compulsory registration of documents that create or extinguish title in joint property, as well as the principles of family settlement and their legal implications.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 7-1 of 2004, before the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Kinnaur, H.P. In the afore civil suit, he claimed rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, for restraining the defendants, from further raising construction over the vacant portion of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.1036, measuring 0-00-82 hectare, Kahta Khatauni No. 97/159, situated in Mauza Kashmir, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. Furthermore, the construction raised upon the vacant portion of the suit land was prayed to be demolished, through the making a decree for mandatory injunction, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, against the defendant. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) concerned, decreed the plaintiff's suit.

2. The defendant Moti Lal, became aggrieved, from the afore made verdict by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) concerned, and, for ventilating his grievance, he reared thereagainst a Civil Appeal bearing No. 37 of 2005, before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court modified the judgement and decree as made by the learned trial Court to the extent that the plaintiff, was declared entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, for restraining the defendant No.1 from raising any construction, over the vacant portion of the suit land or any part of it, and, also from further making any additions and alterations thereons, hence uptil the suit property is partitioned by metes and bounds. Further, the learned First Appellate Court interfered with the decree of mandatory injunction as became accorded to the plaintiff by the learned trial Court. Nonetheless, the learned First Appellate Court in the operative part of its verdict, made an order, that the structure already raised on the suit land, shall be subject to the relevant adjustment, at the time of partition of the suit land, and, that for the afore purpose, the party which has raised construction upon the vacant portion of the suit land, shall have no right to claim any compensation or any other relief in the event of demolition or allotment to another party.

3. The plaintiff now represented by his legal heirs, is aggrieved from the afore made decision by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2005, and, for ventilating his grievance, he reared the extant Regular Second Appeal before this Court.

4. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 26th July, 2011, hence, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant, against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has erred in ignoring the writings Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C?

2. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence in declining the relief of mandatory injunction to the appellant?

Substantial questions of Law No.1 & 2:

5. The contesting litigants are real brothers. The suit property/land was constructed about 30 years prior to the institution of the civil suit hence by their common ancestor, one Dokun Dandub. Obviously, in the suit property, the litigating parties become co-owners through inheritance. The suit property, is, in the revenue records, recorded as joint property, and, the legal effect thereof, is that each of the co-owners thereins, hence hold unity of title and community of possession, over every inch thereof(s), and, the afore incident embodying the jurisprudential concept of joint property lasts upto, the occurrence of partition, of the suit land amongst the jointly recorded co-owners hence by metes and bounds. The further incident of joint property or the property recorded in the apposite land records, as, co-owned, is that the none of the co-owners can without the express, and, implied consent of other co-owners hence proceed to use any p