IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 191 of 1999. Reserved on:23.4.2009. Decided on: 5.5.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Narotam … Appellant. Versus Shri Basanta … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Verma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 58/94. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for convenience sake) on the allegations that he had been owner in possession of the land described in the plaint. It was further alleged that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendant has started interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in March, 1992. It was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 also pleaded that he was in continuous, open, physical and hostile possession of the suit land for more than twelve years prior to the institution of the suit. This suit was contested by the defendant. The ownership and possession of the plaintiff was denied. The learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sundernagar dismissed the suit on 26.10.1994. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. He dismissed the appeal on 20.2.1999. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.2.1999. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Courts below have mis-read and mis- interpreted the evidence on record which otherwise proved the title of the appellant to the suit land?” Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are not sustainable. He vehemently argued that both the learned Courts below have mis-read and mis-construed the ocular as well as documentary evidence placed on record. Mr. Jitender Verma, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The plaintiff had applied for allotment of suit land in his favour to the State on 29.7.1974. The Sub Divisional Collector had allotted the suit land in his favour on 21.5.1975. The defendant also applied for allotment of the suit land. It was allotted in his favour on 8.5.1974. The allotment of land to defendant was 3 contested by the father of plaintiff-Shri Souju Ram. The appeal preferred by Shri Souju Ram was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Collector. The Sub Divisional Collector vide order dated 23.1.1977 allotted a portion of the suit land in favour of defendant. He preferred an appeal against this order to the Collector. The appeal was allowed by the Collector. Finally, the land was allotted in favour of the defendant on 3.9.1982. The allotment of the suit land in favour of plaintiff was rejected by the Sub Divisional Collector. He filed an appeal against the order rejecting his application for the grant of ‘nautor’ land. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 12.11.1983. He preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner. The same was rejected by him on 5.6.1985. He filed civil writ petition bearing No. 675 of 1985 in this Court. The same was rejected by this Court on 5.3.1992 (Ext. DB). The plaintiff had examined four witnesses. PWs 2 to 4 could not identify the suit land. PW-1 Smt. Shankri had deposed that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since the time of his ancestors. However, a bare perusal of revenue record placed on record by the defendant reveals that he had been recorded owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has not produced any revenue record to substantiate his case of ownership and possession. The plaintiff had also failed to prove the basic ingredients of adverse possession. It was necessary for the plaintiff to at least state with precision from which date his possession had become adverse qua the true owner. It was necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove by leading tangible evidence that he had 4 acquired title by way of adverse possession. In view of the orders passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 675 of 1985 coupled with revenue record, the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit land. There is presumption of truth attached to the Jamabandis. The plaintiff has failed to rebut the same. Accordingly, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 5, 2009. (cr)