IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.: 326 of 1998. Reserved on: 27.11.2008. Decided on: 22.12.2008. Keshav Ram. … … Appellant. Versus Sadhu Ram and Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Naresh K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Lokender Thakur and Mr. Rajesh Vats, Advocates for respondent No.3 and vice counsel for respondents No.1 and 4 to 6. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba dated 24.2.1998 in civil Appeal No.22 of 1996. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction. The subject matter of dispute is land comprising in Khasra No.568, Khata No.199, Khatauni No.249 min, situated in Mohal Goli, Tehsil Bhattiyat, Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - District Chamba. According to plaintiff, the suit land is owned and possessed by him alongwith proforma defendants No.2 to 5. It is alleged that on 5.3.1992, the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for convenience sake) without their permission and consent started construction over the portion of the suit land. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit on 16.9.1996. Defendant, Shri Keshav Ram preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Chamba. The learned District Judge, Chamba dismissed the appeal on 24.2.1998. This regular second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Chamba, dated 24.2.1998. The regular second appeal was admitted by the Court on 3.9.1999. It appears that inadvertently the attention of the Court at the time of admission of the appeal on 3.9.1999 was not drawn to substantial questions of law framed by the appellant. In these circumstances, the appeal shall now be deemed to have been admitted on substantial questions of law No.2, 4 and 6 filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal, which are reproduced hereinbelow: 1. When the construction as alleged has been raised much prior to the filing of the suit by the defendant, the suit for injunction is maintainable? 2. Whether without identifying/specifying the encroached portion, the plaintiff can successfully get a decree for possession? 3. Whether in the given circumstances the defendant-appellant is able to prove his adverse possession? Mr. Naresh Thakur has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has strenuously argued that the plea raised by the appellant of - 3 - adverse possession has not been considered by the Courts below in right perspective. Shri Lokender Thakur and Mr. Rajesh Vats have supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected, they are taken up together for adjudication of this regular second appeal. The plaintiff has made statement to the effect that after the demise of his father, the property was succeeded by him, his mother and sisters and his mother sold her share to Jai Dayal. He has further submitted that appellant/defendant had started construction about 2-3 days before he got stay order and Khokha and a house was raised within a week by engaging 15-12 labourers. PW-2, Feni Ram and PW-3 Varinder had supported the version of plaintiff. In Missal Hakiyat (Ex.P-A) for the year 1987-88, plaintiff including proforma defendants and Jai Dayal have been shown to be owners in possession of the suit land. Keshav Ram, DW-1 has set up the plea of adverse possession. He had also taken up the plea that he purchased portion of the suit land for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. The defendant has not produced any sale deed. If the property had been purchased by him for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-, the sale deed was required to be registered. He had, in fact, put up mutually destructive pleas. If he had purchased the property, he had become owner and he could not set up the plea of adverse possession against himself. In the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 there does not exist any house on the land in dispute. It is only the jamabandi for the year 1987-88 which shows that a house exists on this land comprised in Khasra No.568. The defendant has failed to prove his title based on - 4 - adverse possession. He was required to prove that he had constructed the house in dispute before 10th March, 1980. What is mentioned in the written statement is that the house was constructed about 12-13 years back. The material pleadings qua the plea of adverse possession are lacking. The plaintiff has not given the description of land in dispute with precision. However, in view of the stand of the defendant that he had purchased the land in question and constructed his house on the same, it will not affect the merits of the case. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on facts. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no substantial question of law involved in this regular second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. December 22, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.