IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.474 of 1998 Date of decision : May 24, 2010 Ram Dass …Appellant. Versus Gurbachan Singh (Dead ) Through LRs …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below, whereby his suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, which he instituted against respondent- defendant Gurbachan Singh, has been dismissed, with the findings that the suit is bad for non-joinder of State of Himachal Pradesh and that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property, in respect of which relief has been claimed. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering in his possession over land bearing Khasra Nos.721 and 722, situate in village Dehlan of Una District. It was pleaded that the respondent, in connivance with the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… settlement staff, got Khasra No.722 recorded in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh and taking advantage of that entry he was trying to construct a Danga on one side of this land and also threatening to construct a latrine on a portion of it. 3. Defendant denied that the plaintiff was owner of Khasra No.722. He alleged that the State of Himachal Pradesh was its owner. Plaintiff was stated to be owner of Khasra No.721 and it was pleaded that no interference was being caused in Khasra No.721. 4. Trial Court dismissed the suit with the aforesaid findings. Appeal has also been dismissed by the District Judge and findings, observations and decree of the trial Court upheld. 5. Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Courts below committed an error in not placing proper reliance on Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9 in adjudicating the rights of the parties. 2. Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the State of Himachal Pradesh is a necessary party and non-impleading of the State is vitiating circumstance inspite of the document Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9. 3. Whether the Courts below have mis- construed and mis-read the evidence on record in non-suiting the plaintiff. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. …3… 7. Plaintiff filed an application before the Settlement Collector, claiming that Khasra No.722 was part of his old Khasra No.10217, but it had been wrongly shown in the ownership and possession of the State of Himachal Pradesh in the recent settlement. Said Settlement Collector allowed the application vide order Ex. P-9 and directed that Khasra No.722 be shown in the ownership and possession of Swaran Singh and others. It may be stated here that besides the present plaintiff there were several co-owners of old Khasra No.10217. Therefore, order Ex. P-9 means that Khasra No.722 has been ordered to be shown in the ownership and possession of Swaran Singh, Ram Dass and other persons, who are co-sharers, in the Khata and who were earlier recorded as joint owners of old Khasra No.10217. 8. Not only that there is order Ex. P-9 passed by the Settlement Collector, but also entries in the revenue papers have been corrected on the basis of that order. Mutation has been attested as per entry under remarks column of Misl Hakiat for the year 1990-91, copy Ex. P-8. Thus, the State is not a necessary party and so the finding that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties is not sustainable. 9. Defendant Gurbachan Singh denied that the plaintiff was owner of Khasra No.722. He testified that the plaintiff was owner of Khasra No.721 only and that Khasra …4… No.722 was owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. He stated that he had not made nor did he intend to make any encroachment on Khasra No.721 of the plaintiff. He did not say that he had no intention to make any encroachment upon Khasra No.722, which he claimed to belong to the State of Himachal Pradesh. This statement of defendant Gurbachan Singh itself suggests that he has threatened the right of the plaintiff. In the written statement also plaintiff’s right in respect of Khasra No.722 has been denied. 10. In view of the abovestated position, all the three substantial questions law, on which the present appeal was admitted, are answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Consequently, appeal is allowed, judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the respondents are hereby restrained from causing interference in Khasra No.722, in any manner whatsoever. Appeal stands disposed of. May 24, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J