Whether reporters of the Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Regular Second Appeal No. 307 of 2009. Decided on: July 22, 2010. Bidhi Chand. …… Appellant. Versus Balwinder Singh. …….Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral). Appellant was plaintiff before the learned trial Court. He claimed the relief of declaration to the effect that he be declared owner in possession qua the suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in his ownership and possession of the suit land from getting the same partitioned. 2. It was the case of the appellant that in the year 1979, a sale agreement was entered into between the respondent and his brother Surjeet Singh for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. The consideration amount - 2 - was paid and the possession was handed over to him. Surjeet Singh aforesaid executed a sale deed qua half share in the suit land on 22nd March, 1982, whereas the respondent refused to execute the sale deed, but however the appellant remained in uninterrupted and peaceful possession thereof for more than 12 years. His possession became hostile to the real owner and he has become owner qua the share of the respondent by way of adverse possession. 3. The respondent resisted and contested the suit. He denied the execution of the sale agreement as aforesaid and also the receipt of the consideration amount. The partition of the suit land sought from the revenue agency has become final, thus the plaintiff- appellant has no right to maintain the suit. 4. The parties were at issue and after complete trial, the learned trial Court on the scrutiny of the evidence held that the appellant failed to produce and prove in evidence the execution of the agreement and the payment of consideration amount and further that he did not file the suit for specific performance of the agreement, but else sought declaration and injunction as aforesaid, which was not maintainable. Further he - 3 - miserably failed to prove the same, thus the suit was dismissed. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree, appeal was filed before the learned District Judge. After re-examining the matter, the learned District Judge did not find anything wrong in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as such, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this regular second appeal. 6. On the scrutiny of the record, I am also of the opinion that the agreement in question was not proved by the appellant in accordance with law. The revenue entries stand in the name of respondent qua half share of the suit land, which could not be rebutted by leading the cogent evidence. The partition proceedings had become final vide order dated 23.2.1998 Ex.D-1 and the appellant has also failed to prove the hostile animus to possess the suit land against the true owner, therefore, adverse possession is also not proved. 7. There are concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the courts below and I did not find that the evidence on record was in any way misinterpreted or misread, therefore, no substantial question of law is involved in the - 4 - instant case, which requires determination in appeal, as such, the appeal is dismissed in liminie. C.M.P.(M) No.614 of 2009. C.M.P. No.534 of 2009. C.M.P. No.535 of 2009. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all applications are accordingly dismissed. (Surinder Singh ) Judge July 22, 2010. (Pds)