IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 363 of 2000 Date of decision: 9.3.2011 Satish Chand …. Appellant Versus Kesar Singh & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellant: Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Gupta, counsel for respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.2. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). The suit of the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) has been dismissed by both the courts below. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the suit land praying that the defendants No.1 and 2 be 2 directed to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction raised by them over the suit land. In the plaint, it was pleaded that the land, in question, was initially recorded in the ownership and possession of Sh.Santa, son of Sh.Maru and vide mutation No.344, the land was mutated in the name of the defendant No.3 Chiri Devi who, in turn, gifted the suit land in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 and mutation in this behalf was attested in their favour in the year 1992. It is also not disputed that Santa, the original owner was not heard of for 30 years and thereafter, the land was mutated in the name of Chiri Devi. The plaintiff also averred that the defendant No.1 was never inducted as a tenant over the suit land by Chiri Devi or defendants No.4 and 5 but by fraudulent means had got his name entered as tenant in the revenue record and had raised construction on some portion of the suit land. Defendant No.2 is the son of defendant No.1. This appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. The plaintiff had failed to show his title to the suit land. Even according to the averments made in the plaint, it is claimed that defendants 3 No.4 and 5 namely Jagdish Chand and Dalip Singh are the owners of the suit land. It is true that the defendants No.4 and 5 are the brothers of the plaintiff but the plaintiff has not filed the suit on the behalf of their brothers but in his individual capacity. He has no locus standi to file the suit as held by both the courts below. In view of the above discussion, I find that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. March 9, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge