IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.224 of 2000 Date of decision : June 16, 2010 Bhagat Ram and others …Appellants. Versus Muni Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms Vidushi Sharma, vice Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal, by the defendants, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether learned District Judge has erred in DECREEING THE SUIT of the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction without recording a finding that defendants are interfering or threatening to interfere on Khasra No.742/411, more particularly when learned trial court dismissed the suit and finding of interference by defendants on the suit land was also given against the plaintiff? 2. Whether learned District Judge has erred in deciding that plaintiff is in possession of Khasra No.742/411 on the basis of Roznamcha Vakyati Ex. PX and no evidence has been discussed as to through which document the plaintiff has been put in possession of Khasra No.742/411?” Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Plaintiff-respondent Muni Lal filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants-appellants from causing any interference in his possession over land measuring 8 biswas 15 biswansis, bearing Khasra No.411/1/1. Suit was contested by the defendants-appellants, on the plea that they were joint owners and as such they had every right to enjoy every inch of the suit property. Also, they pleaded that they had been put in possession of the suit land by the person, from whom they purchased a share in the joint Khata. 3. Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that since the defendants-appellants were joint owners, there was no question of issuing an injunction against them. Trial Court also upheld the plea of the defendants- appellants that they having been put in possession by one of the co-owners, pursuant to an agreement to sell, had the right to protect their possession. 4. Plaintiff-respondent filed appeal in the Court of District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, partition had taken place among the co-owners and in that partition suit land fell to the share of the plaintiff- respondent. Additional evidence was led to prove the fact. Certificate of partition Ex.PY and Rojnamcha Vakyati, copy Ex. PX, were proved. Learned District Judge, on the basis …3… of these two documents, concluded that since the plaintiff- respondent had been put in possession of the suit land, on the basis of certificate of partition, he had become exclusive owner in possession. With this finding, learned District Judge (first Appellate Court) accepted the appeal and decreed the suit and restrained the defendants- appellants from causing any interference. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Ex. PY is the certificate of partition, per which suit land fell to the share of the plaintiff-respondent. Ex. PX is an entry in the Rojnamcha Vakyati, per which, pursuant to the certificate of partition, possession of the suit land and some other Khasra numbers, which fell to the share of the plaintiff-respondent, had been delivered to him. These two documents do indicate that plaintiff- respondent is now in exclusive possession of the suit land. However, this alone could not have been a ground for decreeing the suit, because plaintiff-respondent did not amend the plaint to aver that even after the partition and the implementation of the order of partition, defendants- appellants were threatening to interfere in his possession. That being so, suit could not have been decreed. Consequently, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the defendants-appellants. …4… 7. Substantial question of law No.2 is rendered infructuous, in view of finding on substantial question of law No.1. 8. In view of answer to substantial question of law No.1, appeal is accepted and judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court are set aside. Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. June 16, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J