IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 180 of 1998 Decided on : March 16, 2010 Prabha Jain …Appellant Versus Devwati Devi ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law, vide order dated 10.8.1998: “1. Whether the ld. Lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that identity of suit land is not established. 2. Whether the ld. Lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that appellant had claimed ownership over suit land, whereas, in fact, in the entire case, the only relief sought for by appellant is that of possession and rights enjoyed by predecessor of respondent. 3. Whether the Ld. Lower appellate court erred in law in not appreciating the judgment Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… delivered on 30.11.1968 in its proper perspective. 4. Whether the judgment of lower appellate court is based upon confusion, poor appreciation of judgment or trial court, which has resulted in denial of justice.” 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal may be stated. Appellant, who was plaintiff before the trial Court, filed a civil suit for declaration that she was in possession of 181 square metres of land, bearing Khasra No.1166 (new), forming part of old Khasra No.410, situate in Mohal Shamsherpur Cantt., Nahan, and that the entries in the Misal Hakiat, prepared in the course of settlement, which took place from 1978 to 1980, were contrary to factual position prevailing on spot, inasmuch as the plaintiff was not shown in possession of any portion of old Khasra No.410, though in the Jamabandi, which was prevalent immediately before commencement of the settlement process, her predecessors’ names were there, showing that they were in possession of 6 biswas area out of Khasra No.410 (min). It was pleaded that initially husband of one Sharda Devi was a tenant on Khasra No.410 under the government. On the death of her husband, Sharda Devi stepped into his shoes. She sold 10 biswas area out of Khasra No.410 min, total area of which was 1 bigha 16 biswas, to Govind Singh, grand father of appellant-plaintiff Prabha Jain. Govind Singh was succeeded by his son Lal Singh and when Lal Singh also died, Prabha …3… Devi being his daughter, stepped into his shoes. It was further pleaded that settlement took place from 1978 to 1980 and Khasra No.410 min was assigned various numbers, including Khasra No.1166, the area of which is recorded as 181 square metres and that this Khasra No.1166 corresponds to that portion of Khasra No.410 min, which had been sold to Govind Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff’s suit was contested by the respondent- defendant. Learned trial Court decreed the suit. Respondent-defendant filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, who accepted the appeal, vide impugned judgment dated 16th March, 1998, holding that Khasra No.1166, though part of old Khasra No.410 min, was not connected with the area, which had allegedly been sold to Govind Singh. Appellant-plaintiff then filed the present appeal, which was admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that identity of the suit land had not been disputed in the written statement by the respondent-defendant and, therefore, learned first appellate Court was not justified in accepting the appeal and thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that identity of the suit land did not stand established. …4… 6. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. In a case, pertaining to immovable property, onus is upon the plaintiff to establish the identity of immovable property and to show by leading evidence that the property claimed by him/her is the same to which he/she has claimed title. 7. In the present case, as already noticed, the total area of old Khasra No.410 min was 1 bigha 16 biswas. This fact is not only admitted by the appellant-plaintiff, but is also borne out from Misal Hakiat for Sambat 1984-85, corresponding to 1934-35 AD, in which total area of Khasra No.410 is recorded 1 bigha 16 biswas, which is shown to be in possession of Govind Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent-defendant as non-occupancy tenant, under the government. 8. Name of plaintiff’s predecessor appeared for the first time in jamabandi for the year 1959-60, when Govind Singh was recorded in possession of 10 biswas area out of Khasra No.410, as vendee, from Sharda Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent-defendant. In the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1963-64, said Govind Singh was shown to be in possession of only 6 biswas area out of Khasra No.410 and the kind of that 6 biswas area was recorded as Abadi. Copy of the jamabandi is Ext. PC. In 9. In Jamabandi for the year 1973-74, which was prevailing when the settlement process was started, also, the predecessor-in-interest of appellant-plaintiff was shown to be in possession of 6 biswas area of Khasra No.410 over which …5… there was Abadi. Khasra No.1166, which allegedly corresponds to 6 biswas area, depicted in Jamabandi for the year 1973-74, copy Ext. PB, in fact, is not connected with this 6 biswas area, inasmuch as 6 biswas area, shown in possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant- plaintiff in Ext. PB, is recorded as Abadi, while Khasra No.1166 in the latest settlement record, copy Ext. D-10, is recorded as Bagicha Faldar. Otherwise also, 6 Biswas area, according to metre system comes to 240 square metres, but the area of Khasra No.1166 is only 181 square metres. Various opportunities were given to the appellant-plaintiff to place on record, the corresponding entries in the latest settlement, pertaining to entire area of old Khasra No.410, but to no avail. 10. It is quite likely that portion of old Khasra No.410, which was sold to the predecessor of the appellant- plaintiff, is depicted by some other number in the latest settlement and in case in respect of that area the entry is not in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, she may seek her remedy against the person, whose name might be there in the revenue record, in the column of possession. 11. In view of the above discussion, substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the appellant. 12. No submissions have been made with regard to the remaining substantial questions of law. Hence, they are found against the appellant-plaintiff. …6… In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed. All pending applications shall stand disposed of. March 16, 2010 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J