IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A.No. 193 of 1999. Decided on : 23.4.2009. ____________________________________________________________ Pushpa Devi …Appellant. Versus Briju alias Birju ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , Judge (Oral ). The appellant was plaintiff in Civil Suit No.108/1991 which was dismissed on 27.8.1993 by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karsog. In appeal, the learned District Judge has affirmed judgment, decree dated 27.8.1993 and hence the plaintiff has come in second appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit for declaration that she had acquired title in land comprised in Khata No.185/1, Khatauni No.297/1, khasra No. 1084/1 measuring 0-4-19 bigha situated in Muhal Churag/242, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi either on the basis of sale transaction dated 6.11.1972 or by way of adverse possession with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from interfering on the suit land. 3. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement and took preliminary objection of limitation. On merits, he pleaded that he is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?.yes 2 owner in possession of the suit land. He denied that he ever agreed to sell the suit land to appellant or he delivered possession of the suit land to her. The transaction dated 6.11.1972 was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by sale transaction dated 6.12.72 (sic)? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is not proved, whether the plaintiff has acquired the title of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP. 3. Relief. The learned Sub Judge answered issues No.1 and 2 in negative and dismissed the suit on 27.8.1993. The appeal also met the same fate. The second appeal has been admitted on following substantial question of law: Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation as well as misappreciation of agreement Exhibit PW-2/A dated 6.11.1972 and Ext.PW-6/A the Hindi version of the agreement to sell? 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned Sub Judge in para 12 of the judgment has held that the appellant has failed to prove the execution of document Ex.PW-2/A. The case of the appellant is that she acquired ownership of the suit land on the basis of transaction Ex.PW-2/A or by way of adverse possession. The transaction Ex.PW-2/A is otherwise not registered and, therefore, for want of registration, the appellant cannot acquire title of suit land through Ex.PW-2/A. The learned District Judge has also returned the finding that execution and writing of Ex.PW-2/A has not been proved. The 3 question is not of mis-reading, mis-interpretation and mis-appreciation of Ex.PW-2/A, the two Courts below have recorded a finding that document Ex.PW-2/A was not executed. This finding of the two Courts below goes to the root of the claim of the appellant even if document Ex.PW-2/A is not treated as a sale deed. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. No case for interference is made out. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. 5. No other point was urged. 6. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh), April 23, 2009. Judge. (GR)