IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.422 of 2010 Date of decision : October 28, 2010 Sher Singh …Appellant. Versus Nath Mall and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A suit was filed by plaintiffs-respondents that they were joint owners in possession, to the extent of 2/3rd share in 5 Marlas area, bearing Khasra No.591, which had wrongly been shown to be in the tenancy of one Punnu and in respect of which proprietary rights had also been conferred upon him. It was stated that one Punnu was a tenant, in respect of 10 Marlas area only, under the plaintiffs and defendant- appellant Sher Singh. However, said Punnu had been conferred proprietary rights, in respect of 15 Marlas area, under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 3. Mutation of conferment of proprietary rights was challenged by the plaintiffs-respondents, by filing a suit. Defendant-appellant Sher Singh was also a party to that suit. A decree was passed in that suit, vide judgment Ex. P-6, that Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… proprietary rights had wrongly been conferred upon Punnu, in respect of 15 Marlas area, because he was, in fact, tenant only on 10 Marlas area. That judgment and the decree passed pursuant to that judgment attained finality. Thereafter, Punnu made sale, in respect of the land, in regard to which proprietary rights had been conferred upon him, in favour of defendant-appellant Sher Singh. Sale deed, it appears, recited that the area sold was 15 Marlas. On the basis of the sale deed, defendant-appellant started claiming to be owner in possession of 15 Marlas area, having been purchased from Punnu. Plaintiffs-respondents, therefore, filed a suit for declaration that Punnu, having been conferred proprietary rights only in respect of 10 Marlas area, could not have sold 15 Marlas area and that what had been purchased by the defendant-appellant was only 10 Marlas area and not 15 Marlas area. They also sought declaration that area in excess of 10 Marlas, i.e. 5 Marlas, was jointly owned by them and the appellant-defendant, and decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought. 4. Trial Court decreed the suit and the parties were held to be joint owners of 5 Marlas area, respondents’ share being 2/3rd and appellant’s share being 1/3rd in that 5 Marlas area. Appeal filed by the defendant-appellant has been dismissed by the learned District Judge. 5. Facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. Now, when judgment, Ex. P-6, had been passed in an earlier suit, declaring that Punnu had been a tenant, in …3… respect of only 10 Marlas area and, therefore, the mutation of conferment of proprietary rights, in respect of 15 Marlas area, had been set aside, sale of 15 Marlas area by Punnu in favour of the defendant-appellant cannot be said to be valid. Punnu being owner of 10 Marlas area only could not have any area in excess thereof. Thus, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below. Also, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. October 28, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J