HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No.: 255 of 2007. Reserved on: 31.3.2008. Decided on: 24.4.2008. Kulbir Singh and others ………Appellants. Versus Rania and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra, dated 28.3.2007, vide which he upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Nurpur, dated 2.2.1998. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in regard to the land in suit comprised in Khasra Nos.696 and 700. They alleged that they are tenants of the ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - suit land and have become owner by virtue of Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the entry in regard to Khasra No.696 showing defendant No.1 as owner and entry showing defendant No.2 Punnu as kabaz over Khasra No.700 are wrong, null and void. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and pleaded that they are owners of the land and had been cultivating the same and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Court framed issue whether the plaintiffs were tenants over the suit land and had become owner under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. On conclusion of the trial, it was held by the learned trial Court that plaintiffs are the tenants over the land comprised in Khasra No.696 and accordingly the relief of declaration and permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the learned trial Court did not grant any relief in regard to Khasra No.700 mainly by holding that since original defendant No.2 Punnu was dead and his legal heirs had not been brought on record, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in respect of this Khasra number. These findings were affirmed in full by the learned first Appellate Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission and have gone through the record of the case. The substantial questions of law framed by the learned counsel for the appellants at the time of filing of the appeal are mainly that the courts below have erred in appreciating the provisions of law and have misread and mis- appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. These questions have been framed in general but the specific question framed was question No.4 as to - 3 - whether the courts below have misread the documents Ext.D-3, Ext.D-6 and Ext.D-7. During the course of arguments also, the learned counsel for the appellants had pointed out that these documents were not appreciated by the courts below and, therefore, it calls for reappraisal of the evidence by this Court. I have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has referred to these documents and in para 7 of the judgment, this document Ext.D-3 was referred to as copy of Rapat Rojnamcha and Exts.D-4 to D-6 as copies of Khasra Girdavari but there was no specific mention of Ext.D-7. The effect of these documents was also discussed by the learned trial Court. A perusal of the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court shows that Ext.D-3 was mentioned as Khasra Girdavari and Ext.D-6 and Ext.D-7 were also mentioned as Khasra Girdavari, which shows entries in regard to possession of these Khasra numbers. A perusal of the record shows that Ext.D-3 is the copy of Jamabandi and Ext.D-6 is the copy of Khasra Girdavari. A perusal of the record further shows that there is no document Ext.D-7 on record either in the list of documents or shown in the index to the record of the learned trial Court. It is, therefore, clear that the learned trial Court had rightly referred to documents Ext.D-3 to D-6 and had not mentioned about Ext.D-7 as any document which finds reference in the observations made by the learned first Appellate Court, but there was no such document on record. Documents Ext.D-3 to D-6 have duly been considered by the courts below and they have come to the conclusion and there is nothing on - 4 - record to show that any document was not read or was not considered by the courts below. Therefore, no case is made out for reappraisal of the evidence and as such no case is made out for admission of the appeal on any substantial question of law formulated in the case. There is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants and the same is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. In view of the final disposal of the main appeal, all the pending miscellaneous application(s) shall also stand disposed of. April 24, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.