The right to withdraw a suit at the appellate stage is not absolute; it depends on the crystallized rights established by the court's earlier judgments.

JUDGMENT :

ROMESH VERMA, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. dated 22.8.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, (1), Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. dated 14.01.2020 has been affirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (1), Kangra, H.P. on 29.01.2014.

3. It was averred in the plaint that as per the record contained in the revenue papers, the suit land is entered in the ownership of the defendants alongwith Smt. Krishana Devi and others after having inherited the same from late Sh. Gujjar Mal. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late Chandu Lal was adopted and taken by late Sh. Gujjar Mal as his son and therefore, out of love and affection, Sh. Gujjar Mal gave land measuring measuring 5 marlas to Chandu Lal vide writing dated 21.11.1966. Pursuant to the writing dated 21.11.1966, late Chandu Lal constructed a house and courtyard over the same and thereafter the plaintiffs are residing over the said suit land till date. It has been averred in the plaint that the aforesaid writing dated 21.11.1966 could not be incorporated in the revenue papers and taking undue advantage of the same, the defendants are threatening to raise construction over the suit land and for that purpose they have started to collect the construction material.

4. The suit of the plaintiffs was contested by the present respondents/defendants by taking various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, all the avermets and contentions as raised in the plaint were refuted and it was specifically denied that Chandu Lal was adopted by late Sh. Gujjar Mal and further it was denied that the land measuring 5 marlas was given to Chandu Lal by Gujjar Mal vide writing dated 21.11.1966, as alleged. It was stated by the defendants that the said alleged writing is false, fabricated and not binding on the rights of the defendants. Further it was claimed by the defendants that the suit land is abadi land and the same is in exclusive ownership of the defendants which they have inherited from their father late Sh. Gujjar Mal. That as per revenue record i.e jamabndi for the years 1963-64 and 1968-69, late Sh. Gujjar Mal was shown to be in ownership and possession of the land measuring 5 marlas which was gair mumkin abadi, therefore, he had no other land which could have been gifted to the plaintiffs.

5. The plaintiffs did not file any replication to the written statement filed by the defendants. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 22. 08.2014 in the following manner:

1. Whether paintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD.
4. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit, as prayed for? OPD.
5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the present, as alleged? OPD.
6. Whether suit is bad f