The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of the suit land and the interference by the appellants were thoroughly assessed, and the court found the respondent to be in peaceful possession, deserving protection by granting a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission of this Civil Second Appeal.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal in brief are; that the respondent herein filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellants for restraining the latter from interfering into their possession over the property i.e land measuring 04 kanals 03 marlas comprised in khasra No.269-min-II, 4 kanal 18 marlas comprised in khasra No.270-I, 3 kanals and 10 marlas comprised in khasra No.284-I, 1 kanal 19 marlas comprised in khsra No.141-min and 1 kanal 12 marlas comprised in khasra No.260 min situated at village Pathana Tir Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch.

3. The suit was filed by the respondent on the ground that the suit land was in his peaceful possession and was duly recorded in the revenue record. The respondent claimed title to the property on the ground that it has been inherited by them from his forefathers. The suit was resisted by the appellants-defendants in the suit by taking a stand that the suit property was not exclusively in possession of the respondent and that the land falling under khasra No.269 and 270 was in possession of the respondent, whereas the land falling under survey No.284 was in possession of the appellants i.e defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit and the land measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas from the same khasra number was in possession of the appellant-defendant No.5 as per partition which had taken place between the appellant and the respondent-co-sharer.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit land ?OPP

(ii) Whether the defendants 1 to 6 are interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in suit land without any legal right or sanction ? OPP

(iii) In case issue No.1 is not proved in affirmative, whether the defendants are in possession of some part of the suit land ? OPD

(iv) Relief.

5. The trial Court upon appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary that had come on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the suit land and that the appellants were interfering in his peaceful possession without any right, title or interest and accordingly a decree as prayed for by the respondent, was passed in favour of the respondent.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed civil first appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Poonch (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court). The first appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence on record and considering the rival contentions, concurred with the findings of fact returned by the trial court and consequently upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 08.09.2017. It is this judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, the appellants are aggrieved of and have assailed the same in this civil second appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has formulated the following substantial questions of law for adjudication in this appeal:

(i) “Whether disposal of the first appeal without following the statutory requirement in terms of order 41 Rule 31 consequently decree deserves to be set aside.

(ii) Whether the findings returned in the point of possession is perverse, if so, the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed.

(iii) Whether the evidence cane be taken into consideration qua the facts, the ground whereof has not been pleaded in the plaint.

(iv) Whether the question relating to the partition of an agricultural land can be decided by the civil court.

(v) Whether the failure of the plaintiffs to prove the nature of the land have pleaded oust the jurisdiction of the civil court.

(vi) Whether the suit before the civil court is barred in terms of section 193 of land Revenue Act.”

(vii) Whether the trial Court is having the jurisdiction to decide