Pritam Chand vs. Shakti Chand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

RSA No. 269 of 2014-A

Date of Decision : October 7 , 2014

Pritam Chand …Appellant

Versus

Shakti Chand … Respondent

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)

This is the defendant's Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's Civil Suit No. 133 of 1999 (RBT No. 473/2004), titled as Shakti Chand vs. Pritam Singh, stands decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. III, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in terms of judgment and decree dated 22.3.2012. Such findings of fact, judgment and decree stand affirmed by the District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2012, titled as Pritam Singh vs. Shakti

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Chand, filed by the defendant. Thus, the present appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact.

2. Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the following terms:-

"In view of my findings on issues No. 1 to 5 above, suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction is decreed restraining the defendant from interfering or raising any construction over the land comprised in khata No. 473, Khatoni No. 603, khasra No. 3384 area 0K – 10M situated in village Daroghan Bhuran, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur and the suit of plaintiff is decreed for possession of 4 Sarsai of land of the plaintiff which is shown as Khasra No. 7552/3384/1 as per Tatima Ex. OW1/G. Demarcation report shall form part and parcel of decree."

3. The decree was passed, based on respective pleadings of the parties, by framing following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether in alternative the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession by way of demolition as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Relief."

6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as also perused the record so made available, no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal, more so, when no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration. It cannot be said that the courts below, mis-read or misconstrued the evidence (oral or documentary) in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. Courts below concurrently have held the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land and decreed the suit, on the basis of demarcation report (Ext. OW1/A).

7. Now in the instant case plaintiff has been able to prove his ownership over the suit land. Courts below rightly adjudicated the issues by holding that the defendant, who had no right, title or interest in the suit land, interfered with the plaintiff's possession over the suit land. Ownership of plaintiff stands proved through revenue record (Ext. P1). Also the Local Commissioner, who visited the spot measured the land in accordance with law. He afforded reasonable opportunity to all concerned and only after specifying and identifying the boundaries of the khasra numbers, arrived at the conclusion that part of suit land stood encroached by the defendant. Parties were associated and afforded reasonable opportunity. Not only that testimonies of Shakti Chand (PW-1) and Kaushalya Devi (PW-2) corroborate such fact.

8. Consequently, I do not find any reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts and material placed on record by the parties or that the same is perverse which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

October 7 , 2014 (PK)