IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 153 of 2001. Judgment reserved on: 24.4.2008. Date of decision: 21.5.2008. Raj Kumar & ors. ….. Appellants. Vs. Nanak Chand …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The defendant Amin Chand had filed this appeal against the judgment, decree 1.2.2001, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2000, confirming the judgment, decree dated 10.11.1999 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 145 of 1994. Amin Chand died during the pendency of the second appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1 Nanak Chand had filed a suit for possession by way of demolition of house over land comprised in khata No. 148, Khatoni No. 269, Khasra No. 2763/1822, measuring 6 Kanals 12 Marlas (for short, the suit land) situated in Tika and Mauza Chamina, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Hamirpur. The pleaded case of respondent No.1 is that suit land was allotted to him in the year 1976-77 under the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974. He was in possession of the suit land, Amin Chand, a stranger having no right title or interest in the suit land started construction in the beginning of the year 1993 on the suit land without the consent of respondent No.1- plaintiff. The respondent No.1 raised objection, but despite that Amin Chand managed to construct two rooms on the suit land. The respondent No.1 got demarcation of the suit land on 2.6.1993, which was confirmed by the Tehsildar on 3.9.1993. The respondent No.1 thereafter requested Amin Chand several times to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land after removal of illegal construction but without any result. On these facts respondent No. 1 filed the suit for possession of the suit land by way of demolition of house raised by Amin Chand on the suit land. 3. The suit was contested by Amin Chand by filing written statement, in which he took preliminary objections of lack of cause of action, estoppel and his adverse possession on suit land since the year 1950 to the knowledge of respondent No.1- plaintiff. The respondent No.1- plaintiff filed replication to the written statement and denied the defence put up by Amin Chand in the written statement. The learned Senior Sub Judge decreed the suit on 10.11.1999, Amin Chand filed appeal against the judgment, decree dated 10.11.1999 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 1.2.2001, hence this appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- …3… Whether both the Ld. Courts below misread and misappreciated the oral and documentary evidence specifically statement of DW -1 and documents Ex. D-1 and DX, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 4. I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.D.Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate, for the respondent and gone through the record. Mr. Ajay Sharma has submitted that inadvertently Ex. D-2 has been mentioned as Ex. DX in the grounds of appeal as well as in substantial question of law, in fact, there is no document Ex. DX on the record. He has submitted that statement of DW 1 Amin Chand and Ex. D-1 as well as Ex . D-2 have been misread and misappreciated by the two courts below regarding the case of the appellants of adverse possession, and, therefore, on these grounds the decision rendered by the two courts below are liable to be set- aside. Mr. G.D.Verma, learned Senior Advocate on the contrary has submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appellants and their predecessor Amin Chand could not establish and prove their adverse possession on the suit land. The finding of fact has been recoded by the two courts below, which does not require any interference in the second appeal. Substantial question of law: 5. Ex. D-1 is a copy of jamabandi for the year 1977-78 with respect to khasra No. 2764/1822 owned by provincial government and in possession of Amin Chand, Sant Ram, Prem Chand in equal share. The suit land is khasra No. 2763/1822, measuring 6 Kanals …4… 12 Marlas. Therefore, Ex. D-1 is of no assistance to the appellants. Even if in place of document Ex. DX mentioned in the substantial question of law referred above Ex. D-2 is taken into consideration in that case also Ex. D-2 is nothing but a sort of communication of Kanungo addressed to A.C.O. It appears some demarcation was carried out on 5.8.1994 and thereafter communication Ex. D-2 was prepared. The demarcation report has not been placed on the record. The communication Ex. D-2 is of no help to the appellants and therefore, communication Ex. D-2 has no legal value. It cannot be termed as demarcation report. It is not accompanied with tatima, nor in Ex. D-2 it has been elaborated how the demarcation was carried out. A Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. vs. Laxmi Nand and others 1992 (2) Sim. L.C. 307, has discussed in detail how the demarcation is to be carried out. There is no material on record to show that demarcation was carried out as per law laid down by this court in Laxmi Nand’s case (supra). Therefore, Ex. D-2 is of no assistance to the appellants. 6. Amin Chand appeared as DW 1. In his statement, he has stated that he had constructed house on the suit land in the year 1950. This statement was made by him on 12.8.1997 when he gave his age 60 years. It means, according to DW 1, he had constructed the house when he was about 13 years, which is not believable. He has not stated that since 1950 he is holding the suit land with house by way of adverse possession against respondent No.1- plaintiff and his predecessor. DW 2 Bardu Ram has stated that the house was constructed by the father of Amin Chand. DW 4 Bakshi Ram has …5… stated that the house was constructed in the year 1987-88. Amin Chand has miserably failed to prove his adverse possession on the suit land. The possession howsoever long without any title is of no help unless that possession culminates into adverse possession. In the present case, appellants have miserably failed to prove their adverse possession on the suit land. The two courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. The appellants have failed to make out a case that two courts below have misread, mis- appreciated the statement of DW 1, document Ex. D 1 and Ex. D-2. There is no document on record as Ex. DX. The substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. May 21, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.