Whether reporters of the Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Regular Second Appeal No. 260 of 2010. Decided on: June 18, 2010. Vijay Kumar. …… Appellant. Versus Dayawanti and another. …….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The appellant is the son of the respondents. He felt aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the learned trial Court against him, in a suit for injunction filed by him, against his parents, with respect to the land comprised in Khasra Nos.1615 and 1616, situated in Mohal Rodi, Mouja Khalet, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. The house over the said land has been claimed to be in their possession by the defendants for the last about 40 years. The learned trial Court also held the respondents in possession, as such, suit of the appellant for restraining the respondents was dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 1.4.2008, passed in - 2 - Civil Suit No.161 of 2004, which was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra, against which the present second appeal has been filed. 2. The suit land is not in the ownership of any of the parties to lis, however, the appellant is recorded in the column of possession thereof without any capacity, as per jamabandi Ex.P1, for the years 1999-2000. 3. During the trial of the case, the appellant when examined in the Court admitted that the respondents were living in one of the portion of the suit house to which he styled it as a store, whereas, his witness PW2 Jeevan Lal stated that they were living in one of the rooms and further that on 10.11.2004, on which date the suit was filed, the defendants had thrown out the utensils of the plaintiff from the store to take its possession. There is a marked difference between the pleading and proof. Further different story was put by the plaintiff-appellant, respondents and their witnesses during the trial. 3. The Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land stands not proved, rather the defendants have been proved to be in its possession. Therefore, against the above factual background, the courts below had rightly - 3 - dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. There is no substantial question of law, which arises for determination of the appeal, therefore, the appeal is dismissed in liminie. C.M.P. No.495 of 2010. In view of the final dismissal of the appeal, the application has become infructuous. (Surinder Singh ) Judge June 18, 2010. (Pds)