The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of the lower courts must be based on a thorough examination and critical appraisal of the facts and law before them, and the courts should not ignore vital aspects of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

1. The instant regular second appeal has been maintained by appellant, Shri Tulsi Ram, who was plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as "original plaintiff"), but, during the pendency of the instant appeal, he died, now the appeal is being pursued by his legal representatives. The original plaintiff maintained a suit against the respondents herein, who were defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"), for declaration and injunction as a consequential relief. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said suit, vide its judgment dated 27.11.2004, passed in Civil Suit No. 75 of 2001, so the original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 17.03.2008, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2005.

2. The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:

2(a). The original plaintiff maintained a suit seeking declaration and injunction against the defendants. The original plaintiff pleaded that the land comprised under Khewat No. 74/70, Khatauni No. 88, Khasra No. 283, measuring 2-14-6 bighas, situate at Mouja Khiuri-Abal, HB No. 282, Pargana Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the suit land"), is recorded under the joint ownership and possession of the original plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and one Sh. Jindu and defendant No. 1 is reflected as owner to the extent of 1/3rd share and now defendant No. 2, on the premise of alleged sale deed, which entry is not admitted to be correct. It is contended that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land before the settlement operation and he is in cultivating possession. It is further contended that taking advantage of the wrongful entry existing in favour of defendant No. 1, during the month of September, 1987, he tried to forcibly occupy and cultivate the suit land, but he was not allowed to do the same by the original plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 neither asked for joint possession nor took any steps in this regard. Resultantly, w.e.f. September, 1987, the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land became open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile and to the full knowledge of defendant No. 1. During the month of September, 1999, the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land matured into absolute possession and the right, title and interest of defendant No. 1 over the suit land extinguished. It is further averred that through sale deed No. 675, dated 24.05.2001, defendant No. 1, without any right, title and interest, sold the suit land to defendant No. 2, which is not only wrong but illegal. It is prayed that the alleged sale deed be declared wrong, illegal and incorrect, having no binding effect upon the rights of the original plaintiff over the suit land. On 16.06.2001, defendant No. 2, under the garb of the above sale deed and in connivance with defendant No. 1, started unlawful interference over the peaceful possession of the original plaintiff upon the suit land and also threatened to occupy the same by raising construction over the land in question. When the defendants did not resist from their acts, the original plaintiff filed a suit against them.

2(b). The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement/counter claim, wherein it is alleged that the parties have interest over the suit land as joint co-sharers. It is contended that defendant No. 2 purchased the share of defendant No. 1 and mutation to this effect also stood attested. It is denied that the original plaintiff was in cultivation possession over the suit land prior to settlement. It is admitted that the original plaintiff is a co-sharer having joint interest with defendant No. 1, so there was no occasion for defendant No. 1 to take forcible possession from the o