JUDGMENT : Romesh Verma, J. The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 30.07.2024 as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. dated 27.09.2022 has been affirmed. 2. The facts, which arises in the present case, are that the plaintiff/appellant preferred suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for mandatory injunction against the defendants/respondents. It was averred in the plaint that one of the co-sharers, namely, Kashmir Singh has died and defendant No.1 along with other co-sharers has succeeded to his estate, however, till date the necessary mutation has not been attested in their names. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff, defendants along with other sharers are co-owners in joint possession of the suit property comprised in Khata No.12, Khatauni No.34, Khasra No.188, measuring 04-37-38 hects, situated in Mohal Gharana Khas, Hadbast No.141, Patwar Circle Charana, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. It was further alleged that on 31.12.2017, the defendants/respondents with malafide intention to occupy the best and valuable portion of the suit land, abutting to the road without effecting the partition of the suit land, deployed JCB machine and started levelling the best and valuable portion of the suit land with an intention to raise construction and to oust the plaintiff. Therefore, under such circumstances, the decree for injunction and in alternative relief for mandatory injunction was sought from the learned trial Court. 3. The defendants contested the suit filed by the plaintiff on various grounds such as maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, it was stated that the suit land is no more joint amongst the parties as on 02.03.2004, the suit land has been partitioned in a family partition and consequent to that the plaintiff has occupied his share over the suit land and the defendants are in separate possession of their respective shares in the suit land. It was submitted that defendant No.1, after retirement from the Army in the month of 2017, deployed JCB machine and got levelled his respective share in the land and prepared the land for construction. Further the defendants have spent more than Rs.5.00 lacs for levelling of land. It was submitted that defendant No.1, after retirement from the Army in the month of 2017, deployed JCB machine and got levelled his respective share in the land and prepared the land for construction. Further the defendants have spent more than Rs.5.00 lacs for levelling of land. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 16.07.2019, framed the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff in the alternative is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction by demolition of structure if in case the defendants succeed in raising construction over the suit land during pendency of the suit, as prayed for ?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged ? OPD. 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged ? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hand and has suppressed the material facts as alleged? OPD 8. Relief.” 5. The trial Court directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and finally vide its judgment and decree dated 27.09.2022 dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant. 6. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. on 22.11.2023. The learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 30.07.2024 has also dismissed the appeal as preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. 7. Still feeling aggrieved, the present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 8. On 07.04.2025, notices were issued to the respondents and now they are represented by Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate assisted by Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that since the land in question is joint between the parties, therefore, the respondents/defendants cannot be permitted to raise any kind of construction over the joint land till the same is partitioned on the spot. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate assisted by Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that since the land in question is joint between the parties, therefore, the respondents/defendants cannot be permitted to raise any kind of construction over the joint land till the same is partitioned on the spot. He further submitted that both the Courts below have misread, mis-interpreted and mis-appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and have not decided the issues in consonance with the provisions of law. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, stated that there are concurrent findings of fact and no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Therefore, there is no scope of interference in the present appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed out rightly at the threshold that too at the admission stage. 11. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff entered into the witness box as PW-1 and while deposing in witness box he stated that the land is joint amongst the parties and defendants in the month of December 2017 deployed the JCB machine and started levelling the suit land and despite his objection, they did not stop and consequently he was constrained to file the suit. 12. Importantly and interestingly while being cross- examined by the defendants, the plaintiff has denied that the suit land is 114 Kanals, but, stated that it is 125 Kanals. He admitted that the suit land comprises of houses and shops of various persons. He admitted that the parties have distributed the land amongst them by a separate writing and he has also put his signatures. He further admitted that water pipes are passing through the suit land. He admitted that he is also holding possession  over the suit land abutting to road. He further admitted that he has not impleaded other co-sharers as party in the present proceedings. 13. The defendants in order to substantiate their case examined one witness and apart from that defendant No.1 appeared in the witness box as DW-1. While deposing in the witness box, he stated that the suit land is situated at Gharana Khas comprising of Khata No.12, measuring 110-115 Kanals. The suit land was got partitioned in family partition in the year 2004. While deposing in the witness box, he stated that the suit land is situated at Gharana Khas comprising of Khata No.12, measuring 110-115 Kanals. The suit land was got partitioned in family partition in the year 2004. He stated that one water pipeline is also crossing through the suit land which he got removed. Thereafter he levelled the land which falls in their share. After partition in 2004-2005, he spent Rs.4.00 to Rs.5.00 lacs for leveling of the suit land. He further stated that in the year 2017, he again started levelling and foundation work upon the same consequent to which the plaintiff filed the present suit. 14. The learned Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the suit land is joint between the parties and each and every co-sharer has got a right to use and enjoy the fruits of the property and develop the same in accordance with law, subject to the condition that such use of the property will not render the partition impossible. 15. From perusal of the record, there is no iota of evidence in order to show or demonstrate from the record that there is any action or inaction on the part of the defendants which may be detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff in any manner. The plaintiff has failed to establish any kind of interference over the suit property as a result of which no relief in the form of decree of injunction can be granted to him. 16. The plaintiff has halfheartedly pleaded and proved his case as observed in earlier part of the judgment the plaintiff has admitted that he is also holding possession over the suit land abutting to the road. He has specifically admitted that the parties have distributed the land amongst them by separate writing and he has also appended his signatures over the same. 17. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff was required to substantiate the pleadings and lead evidence inconformity with the provisions of law and in the absence of doing so an adverse inference is required to be drawn against him. 17. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff was required to substantiate the pleadings and lead evidence inconformity with the provisions of law and in the absence of doing so an adverse inference is required to be drawn against him. There is admission on the part of the plaintiff that there are several houses and shops which have been constructed over the suit land and this admission on the part of the plaintiff goes against him since nothing has been established by the plaintiff whether he had raised any kind of objection qua construction of those houses and shops raised by the other co-sharers of the suit property. The admission on the part of the plaintiff that several co-sharers have raised their houses and shops leads to an inference that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and he has tried to drag the defendants in an uncalled for litigation without any corroborative evidence. Once, there are various houses and shops over the suit property which were never objected by the plaintiff, therefore, by filing the instant suit the plaintiff has tried to single out the defendants by seeking a decree of injunction and mandatory injunction. He himself is occupying the suit property abutting the road and he has also admitted that the parties have distributed the land amongst them by separate writing. The only conclusion which can be drawn from such admission is that the co-sharers are in their respective possession and they are enjoying the suit property as per their convenience and the plaintiff in order to drag the defendants in an uncalled for litigation has filed the present suit without any cause of action. 18. From the of evidence and material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiff has got no cause of action to seek the discretionary relief of injunction against the defendants more so when he has not approached the Court with clean hands. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its various decisions has categorically held that the High Courts should not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact in a routine manner until and unless judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are perverse and of no evidence. 20. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its various decisions has categorically held that the High Courts should not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact in a routine manner until and unless judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are perverse and of no evidence. 20. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of fact rendered by the learned Courts below and the scope of interference in the concurrent finding of fact, as per the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, is very narrow and limited. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in its various decisions that the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to substitute its own view for a plausible finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court. 21. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Navaneethammal vs. Arjuna Chetty AIR 1996 SC 3521 , wherein it has been held as under: “10. This Court, time without number, pointed out that interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below by the High Court under Section 100 CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to re-appreciating the evidence just to replace the findings for the lower courts. 20. In our considered view the lower Appellate Court has fairly appreciated the evidence in the above background and has reached the conclusion that the suit was not barred by Limitation. Even assuming that another view is possible on a re-appreciation of the same evidence, that should not have been done by the High Court as it cannot be said that the view taken by the First Appellate Court was based on no material.” 22. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait and others (1997) 5 SCC 438 has held as under: “10. We would only add that (a) it is the duty cast upon the High Court to formalate the substantial question of law involved in the case even at the initial stage; and (b) that in (exceptional) cases, at a later point of time, when the Court exercises its jurisdiction under the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 C.P.C in formulating the substantial question of law, the opposite party should be put on notice thereon and should be given a fair or proper opportunity to meet the point. Proceeding to hear the appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal is illegal and is an abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court; and even after the formulation of the substantial question of law, if a fair or proper opportunity is not afforded to the opposite side, it will amount to denial of natural justice. The above parameters within which the High Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC should always be borne in mind. We are sorry to state that the above aspects are seldom borne in mind in many cases and second appeals are entertained and/or disposed of, without conforming to the above discipline. 11. The guidelines to determine as to what is a "substantial question of law" within the meaning of Section 100 CPC, have been laid down by this Court in a Constitution Bench decision in Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd There is also a later decision of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India. It is unnecessary to deal at length with that aspect any further.” 23. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, AIR 1999 SC 2213 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. It is not within the domain of the High court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate Court. It is true that the lower appellat Court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court, in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial Court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate Court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 24. In Civil Appeal No.5131 of 2025, titled as R. Nagaraj (dead) through LRs and another vs. Rajmani and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under” “7. By the impugned judgment and order and without answering anything on the substantial questions of law framed/formulated, absolutely in a casual manner, the High Court has allowed the Second Appeal and has set aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below and thereafter has remanded the matter to the learned trial Court permitting the original plaintiff to amend the plaint and pray for fixation of the boundary. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are constrained to observe that the manner in which the High Court has dealt with the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is not appreciable at all. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has exercised the powers as if the High Court was deciding the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has not appreciated at all that the High Court was deciding the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and that too against the concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below, which were, as such, on appreciation of evidence on record. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. 11. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the High Court was dealing with the Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC and the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below which were on appreciation of evidence on record. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. 11. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the High Court was dealing with the Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC and the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below which were on appreciation of evidence on record. Neither at the stage of deciding the suit nor even before the first Appellate Court even such a prayer was made to amend the plaint, which is now permitted by the High Court, despite the fact that earlier in the suit during the course of trial, the plaint was amended. Under the circumstances also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.” 25. In the present case, the findings as returned by the Courts below are findings of fact which does not call for any interference. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law. 26. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.