The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2000 passed by learned Sub Judge First Class (1), Amb, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court against the defendant to seek permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner whatsoever or raising any construction over the land measuring 0-04-06 hectare comprising Khewat No. 315, Khatauni No. 736 and Khasra No.339 and 340 as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 situated in village Chalet Lower, Tehsil Amb, District Una, HP. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was asserted that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and other co-sharers. The plaintiff has constructed a shop on the part of Khasra No. 340 and raised an orchard on Khasra No. 339. The defendant is the owner of the adjacent land located towards the western side of the suit land. The defendant is interfering with the suit land despite requests. Hence, a suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and cause of action, the plaintiff having suppressed the material facts from the Court, and the plaintiff being estopped by her act and conduct to file the suit. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the defendant had no concern with Khasra No. 339. Chinti Devi was the owner of Khasra No. 340. Her General Power of Attorney, Prakash Chand, had entered into a compromise with the defendant on 13.07.1992, vide which Khasra No. 340 was exchanged with the defendant. The defendant became the owner of the exchanged land. The defendant filled out the foundation of the shop up to the ground level in the presence of the plaintiff and her predecessor without any objection from any person. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 18.10.1997:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunctions, as prayed? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit, as alleged? OPD

4. Whether mother of plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 13.07.1992, if so, its effect? OPD

5. Relief.

6. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the plaintiff examined herself (PW1). The defendant examined himself (DW1), Harbhajan Singh (DW2), Parveen Kumar (DW3) and Bharam Singh (DW4).

7. The learned Trial Court held that the plea taken by the defendant that the suit land was exchanged by an agreement executed between the defendant and General Power of Attorney was duly proved. The plaintiff had concealed the General Power of Attorney from the Court and was not entitled to any relief. Hence, the learned Trial Court answered issue No.1 in the negative, issues Nos 2 to 4 in the affirmative, and dismissed the suit.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court, Una, District Una (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court held that the General Power of Attorney was not brought on record, and it was difficult to gather the extent of Prakash Chand’s authority. An exchange is compulsorily required t