IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 609 of 2007 Date of Decision: June 27, 2008. Bhuri Singh & Ors. ..Appellants. Versus. Balbir Singh anr. ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant(s): Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.( Oral). The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that they are owners in possession of the land comprised in khasra No. 1898/1105, 1901/1107 and 1106. They also alleged that khasra Nos. 1900/1105 and 1897/1104 are in the joint ownership and possession of the parties. According to the plaintiffs the defendants have started interfering in the land of the plaintiffs comprised in khasra No. 1898/1105, 1901/1107 and 1106 and had collected construction materials and threatened to raise construction on khasra No. 1900/1105 and 1897/1104. - 2 - The defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiffs regarding ownership and possession of the suit land. However, according to the defendants, they were raising their construction on their own land and not on the land of the plaintiffs. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have been proved to be the owner in possession of the land comprised in khasra No. 1989/1105 and 1901/1107 and 1106 and found that the defendants have not raised any construction on the land of the plaintiffs. During the course of the trial, at the request of the plaintiffs, a Local Commissioner was appointed. This Local Commissioner also came to the conclusion that no encroachment has been done by the defendants on the land of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the report of the local commissioner, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also rejected. I have heard Shri Ajay Sharma learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Shri Vikas Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. The main plank of argument of Shri Ajay Sharma is that the report of the Local Commissioner is not in - 3 - accordance with the ‘Shajra Kishtwar’ and the measurement of the land has been changed and if the Local Commissioner’s report is accepted, the area in possession of defendants is more than what has been given by them. I have gone through the report of the Local Commissioner and ‘Shajra Kishtwar’ and found that both tally with each other. The main ground raised is that the southern boundary of khasra No. 1897/1104 has been shown as 8 karams instead of 7 karams. This fact is not correct. Even from the Tatima attached to the report of the Local Commissioner, it is clear that the southern boundary of khasra No.1897/1104 is 7 karams. Both the courts below have decided the case on appreciation of the evidence. The findings are pure findings of facts. No question of law much less a substantial question law arises in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. June 27, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.