RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.

1. These two identical regular second appeals, filed by the same appellant, against two sets of impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, by recording concurrent findings of facts, whereby in one case suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed and in other case, suit for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein present appellant was defendant, was decreed, are being decided together vide this common order, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, in both these cases, as both these appeals are arising out of similar set of facts regarding same property. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RSA No. 830 of 2016 (Naseem v. Jamilan and others).

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned first appellate Court in para 2 of its impugned judgment, are that the parties are Muslim Kamboj by caste and are governed by Mohammedan Law in the matter of succession and alienation. Originally, Mohd. Ibrahim was owner in possession to the extent of half share out of 64 bigha 7 biswa as fully detailed and remaining half share was owned and possessed b