IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 88 of 2001 Date of Decision : March 10, 2011 Sh. Dharam Pal Appellant Versus Smt. Reshma Devi and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “5. Whether judgments and decrees passed by the courts below for misreading and misappreciating Ext. P-3, P-4 and Ext. D-1 stand vitiated and liable to be quashed and set aside?” 2. Appellant who is the plaintiff, has assailed concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Plaintiff’s suit for declaration, permanent injunction and alternate prayer for possession was dismissed by the trial Court in terms of its judgment Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and decree dated 31.5.1996, passed in Civil Suit No. 178 of 1992, titled as Dharam Pal versus Sita Ram. The same was affirmed by the lower appellate Court in terms of its judgment and decree dated 22.5.2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1996, titled as Dharam Pal versus Sita Ram (deceased) through his LR’s. 3. The Courts below have concurrently held that Sh. Babu Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/respondents herein was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record which is evident from the jamabandi pertaining to the years 1961-62 (Ext. D-1). 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record I find no ground to interfere in the present appeal. In my considered view no substantial question of law arises for consideration at all. Entries in the revenue record clearly record Sh. Babu Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, to be in possession of the land on payment of “Chakota”(tenant). The position continued from the year 1965-66 till the year 1985-86 when the jamabandi (Ext. P1) showed the plaintiff to be owner in possession thereof. There is nothing on record to show that such entry was made after an inquiry conducted by the revenue authorities in accordance with the provisions of law. That apart, the evidence of defendant Sh. Sita Ram (DW-1), Sh. Charan Dass (DW- 2) and Sh. Chokas Ram (DW-3) also show that plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit premises. Plaintiff’s alternate prayer made in the plaint also suggest this fact. It is not a case of the plaintiff that during trial defendants dispossessed him. Documents 3 Ext. P-3, P-4 and D-1 cannot be read in isolation. They have to be read in totality. The revenue record already discussed hereinabove clearly establish the fact that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit premises. One single entry pertaining to the year 1961-62 (Ext. D-1) which does not reflect the name of Sh. Babu Ram as tenant also cannot be held to have conclusively established the fact that tenancy of Sh. Babu Ram had come to an end. 5. Consequently I see no reason to interfere. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the documents and there is no perversity or illegality in the same. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 10, 2011 (PK)