IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 226 of 1999 Date of decision : 8.12.2010. Sohan Lal and others …Appellants. Versus Ratti Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. K. D. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent No.1 Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent No.5: Mr. Neeraj Sharma vice Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) CMP No.377 of 1999: Alongwith the appeal, the appellants have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27. This suit was initially filed in the year 1989. When appeal was pending before the learned lower Appellate Court opportunity was given to the defendants to amend the written statement. They were well aware of the dispute. Thereafter, they led evidence before the trial Court. Findings were 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 given by the learned trial Judge and these findings were assailed before the learned lower Appellate Court. In second appeal the applicants cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence when they have been totally negligent at various stages. There is sufficient material on record to decide the appeal. Therefore, this application is dismissed. RSA No. 226 of 1999: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 9.4.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 47-K/13 of 1992 whereby he affirmed the judgement and decree dated 3.6.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the year 1989 Attru and Ratti Ram, predecessors-in- interest of the respondents filed a suit against Sohan Lal, Nand Lal and the predecessor-in-interest of the other appellants. In this suit, it was claimed that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants who have no connection with the same be restrained from interfering in the same. It was alleged that the 3 plaintiff No.1 is an old person and resides normally at Solan in connection with his job and taking advantage of his absence the defendants were trying to interfere in the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendants and in the written statement it was alleged that one Lasnoo was tenant over the suit land and Lasnoo had three sons, namely, Sadhu Ram, Budhi Ram and Kapooru. Thereafter, property of Budhi Ram alias Attru devolved upon the defendants and they are in cultivating possession of the same and the suit property is part of the said property. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that some land had been left by the plaintiffs in favour of original defendants No. 1, 4 and 7. He, however, came to the conclusion that as far as the remaining land was concerned the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for declaration and injunction, as prayed for. Against this judgement and decree, an appeal was carried to the learned lower Appellate Court. This appeal was partly allowed and the matter remanded to the learned trial Court but against this order of the learned lower Appellate Court an appeal was 4 carried to this Court and the order of remand was set-aside and the learned lower Appellate Court was directed to decide the case on merits. 3. Thereafter, an application for amendment was filed by the defendants and amendment was made in the written statement and on the basis of this amendment certain additional issues were framed. Basically, the dispute raised by the defendants was that Budhi Ram alias Attru in collusion with revenue authorities manipulated the revenue entries in his name by showing the name of his father to be Finoo in stead of Lasnoo. According to the defendants, the property was of Lasnoo and not of Finoo and therefore, the entry made in favour of the plaintiffs was wrong. The findings of the learned trial Court were called for on these additional issues. The learned trial Court decided all these issues against the defendants. Thereafter, the appeal was heard by the first Appellate Court who came to the conclusion that the plea set up by the defendants that Budhu was also known as Attru cannot be accepted. According to him, Attru S/o Finoo was a different person and Budhu S/o Lasnoo 5 is not the same person as Attru S/o Finoo. The learned Courts below came to the conclusion that these are two separate persons and therefore, disbelieved the case of the defendants. The whole case of the defendants hinges around this argument that Budhi Ram and Attru are one and the same person. The findings of both the Courts below that Budhi Ram and Attru are two different persons is a pure finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC. Both the Courts below also came to the conclusion that no material has been placed on record to show that Lasnoo was tenant over the suit land. In fact the continuous entries in the revenue records reflect that father of Attru i.e. Finoo was non-occupancy tenant over the suit land and was succeeded by his two sons Sadhu and Attru. These findings of fact cannot be interfered in the second appeal. No question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is rejected. No order as to costs. 8th December, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.