JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 15-1 of 2004 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, H.P. In the afore Civil suit, the plaintiff, claimed the hereinafter extracted relief(s):-

“(i) defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

(ii) By way of mandatory injunction, the defendant may be required to get the entries in the record of right brought up to date inconformity with the claim of the plaintiff.

(iii) In case, the plaintiff is found have been dispossessed from any portion of the land in suit in that event, a decree be passed for possession on the basis of title.”

The learned trial court through its verdict made thereon, on 16.10.2009, dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

2. In an appeal carried thereagainst by the aggrieved plaintiff, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter through its verdict made on 22.11.2012, upon, Civil Appeal No. 2-S/13 of 2010, dismissed the afore appeal, and, affirmed the judgement and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court

3. Consequently, the plaintiff is led to institute the extant appeal before this Court.

4. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, it became admitted, on 23.08.2021, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, have been wrongly applied by both the learned Courts below, and also whether mandate of Order 9, Rule 7 CPC and the mandate of Article 58 of the Limitation Act were not applicable to the lis at hand?

2. Whether the plaintiff's suit for injunction is maintainable as and when cause of action arises and when the plaintiff became aware of threats to his possession over the suit land?

Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2.

5. The plaintiff acquired a valid title to the suit property, through a testamentary disposition made in his favour by one Devaku. The validity of the afore testamentary disposition, did not, come to be challenged by the defendants. Though, through the testamentary disposition (supra), as made in favour of the plaintiff by one Devaku, and, to which Ex.PW4/A becomes ascribed, the legatee therein, who is the plaintiff herein, evidently acquired title to 10 bighas and 3 biswas of land, hitherto owned as co-owner by deceased testatrix one Devaku. Moreover, with Ex.PW4/A, becoming proven by PW-5, one of the attesting witness thereto, and, wherethrough, the deceased testatrix one Devaku, bequeathed, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the suit land comprised in khata No. 6, Khatauni No.9, Khasra No,92/2 measuring 3 bighas, khasra No.94/3, measuring 5.6 bighas, 96/7 measuring 1.16 bighas, and, area measuring 2.18 bighas, out of khasra No.38, total measuring 10-3 bighas, thereupon at the stage of an order of mutation being attested by the Revenue officer concerned, rather the completest deference became enjoined to be meted thereto. However, through, the order of mutation as made on anvil of validly proven Will Ex.PW4/A, the legatee rather received only 5.2 bighas of land. In the face of the afore apparent discrepancies inter se the land bequeathed, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, through a validly proven testamentary disposition, borne in Ex.PW4/A, and, the order of mutation comprised in Ex.PW2/E-1, hence mutation No.55 borne in Ex.PW2/E-1, assumes at its inception invalidity in the eyes of law. Moreover, any corresponding thereto entries as carried in the jamabandi appertaining to the suit land, do likewise garner no validity. Therefore, both supra are amenable for being quashed and set aside.

6. However, inter se the similar parties in the extant lis, and, also with respect to a similar subject matter, as contained in the extant lis, the plaintiff earlier instituted a civil suit bearing No. 121/1 of 1998, before the learned Sub Judge(2), Shimla. The afore civil suit, as unraveled by an order made thereon, on 17.01.2002, and, as becomes embodied in E