IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No._236 of 1996. Judgment reserved on: 13.3.2008 Date of decision: 14.3.2008. Dano Devi …….Appellant Vs. Kartar Singh and another …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge. Plaintiff No.2 Smt. Dano Devi has filed this appeal against the judgment, decree dated 10.4.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No.60 of 1993, confirming judgment, decree dated 11.2.1993 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (II) Amb, District Una in Case No.241/88. 2. The facts in brief are that Rasila Ram and Smt. Dano Devi had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Kartar singh defendant restraining defendant from interfering in any manner in possession of the plaintiffs, changing the nature of the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… properties ( for short suit property), shown by letters ABCDEF and GHIJ in the site plan attached with the plaint. The suit was filed on the grounds that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit property shown in green colour including properties shown by letters ABCDEF and GHIJ shown in red in the site plan. The further allegations in the plaint are that defendant is threatening to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from suit property. The defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The defendant is threatening to change the nature of the suit property by raising construction thereon. 3. The suit was contested by defendant by filing written statement in which preliminary objection of maintainability of the suit has been taken. On merits, Para No.1 of the plaint has been denied. The correctness of the site plan has also been denied. The defendant has pleaded that he has old abadi and cattle shed, he is carrying repair of old abadi which is in his possession. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement and in the replication they reiterated the stand which they have taken in the plaint and denied the case set up by the defendant in the written statement. 4. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit on 11.2.1993. The plaintiffs filed appeal which has also been dismissed by lower Appellate Court on 10.4.1996, hence second appeal by plaintiff No.2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of ms-appreciation and mis- …3… construction of the documents Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.D- 1, hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside? 2. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are legally sustainable in view of the fact that the abadi in dispute is forming part of abadi deh area and no specific or separate mention of the owners are given in the revenue record? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgments and decrees are sustainable?. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below have mis- construed the documents Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.D-1. The dispute is with respect to abadi deh and no specific or separate mention of the owners are given in the revenue record regarding specific portion of abadi deh. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the two Courts below have recorded a finding of fact. The plaintiffs have failed to identify the property. No substantial questions of law are involved in the appeal which require determination by this Court. Substantial Questions of Law 1 to 3 6. All the substantial questions of law are interconnected therefore, they are being disposed of collectively. PW-1 Rasila Ram in his statement has not stated any overt act of the defendant for causing interference on the suit property. PW-2 …4… Ramesh Chand has also not stated anything about the threatened interference of defendant on the suit property. The plaintiffs in their plaint have asserted their right on the abadi deh. The plaintiffs have however, pleaded that the defendant has no right or title on the property. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff No.2 has submitted that in the revenue record of abadi deh the possession of specific portion of the plaintiffs has not been recorded but that does not mean that plaintiffs are not in possession of particular portion of abadi deh shown in plan Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 has admitted that defendant has abadi in the village but he does not know the khasra number of his abadi. The person who has prepared site plan Ex.PW-1/A has not been examined. PW-1 has not prepared plan Ex.PW-1/A. He has simply signed it. The putting of the signature by PW-1 on plan Ex.PW-1/A does not mean that PW-1 has prepared the plan. The plan Ex.PW-1/A has not been proved in accordance with law and therefore, it cannot be looked into evidence. Ex.D-1 is the jamabandi for the years 1982-1983 showing khasra nos. 4201, 4202. In the plaint no khasra numbers have been mentioned nor there is reference of jamabandi for the year 1982-1983 , therefore, plaintiffs cannot take any help from jamabandi Ex.D-1. It has not been pointed out how the plan Ex.PW-1/A which has not been proved and jamabandi Ex.D-1 have been mis-construed by the two Courts below. In addition to this the plaintiffs have not proved overt acts of defendant of interference on the suit property. PW-1 in his statement has vaguely stated that defendant for the …5… last two years is threatening him to move out of the property. This part of the statement has not been corroborated by any other witness. The injunction cannot be granted just on the asking unless overt acts of the defendant of interference are proved. The two Courts below have properly appreciated the material on record. No case for interference has been made out. Hence, substantial questions of law No.1 to 3 are decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent No.1. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. March 14, 2007 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.