IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.131 of 1996 Date of decision : March 16, 2010 Narain and others …Appellants. Versus Dass and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Ms Shubh Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, whereby their suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, which they instituted against the defendants-respondents, was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. 2. Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether lower appellate court has misunderstood the real points for determination in arriving at a finding of fact. 2. Whether learned appellate court has not applied its mind to a question of fact and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… has not weighed it to record a conclusion, in respect of its finding on the point possession. 3. Whether learned appellate court has ignored the material on record and has as such committed an error of law.” 3. Facts, which need to be noticed for the disposal of the appeal, are like this. One Smt. Badamu, an old woman, acquired ownership of the suit property, on account of conferment of proprietary rights upon her, under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, because earlier she was a tenant of this land. Soon after the attestation of mutation of conferment of proprietary rights, Badamu allegedly entered into an agreement, Ex. PW-2/A, for the sale of the suit land with the plaintiffs-appellants. She received the entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.6,000/- and put the plaintiffs-appellants in possession of the suit land. Sale deed was, however, not executed, immediately, because as per law there was a bar to the transfer of land by the tenants acquiring proprietary rights, under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, for a period of ten years. Before the expiry of the period of ten years, Badamu died. After the death of Badamu in 1986, suit property was mutated in favour of said Biriya and Mathru, who sold the same to the present defendants-respondents, by executing sale deeds. Plaintiffs-appellants claimed that since they were in possession of the suit property, they had the right to …3… remain in possession till they were lawfully dispossessed. They alleged that defendants-respondents, on the strength of the sale deed executed in their favour by Biriya and Mathru, were trying to oust them. 4. Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that Badamu could not have sold the suit property and put the plaintiffs-appellants in possession thereof. It was also held that the plaintiffs-appellants were out of possession. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants in the Court of District Judge also stands dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants as also the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents and gone through the pleadings and the evidence. 6. There is absolutely no documentary evidence in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, except writing Ex.PW-2/A to support their plea that the possession of the suit land is with them. Of course, it is recorded in Ex. PW-2/A that Badamu had put the plaintiffs-appellants in possession, but in the revenue papers the suit land continued to be recorded in the ownership and possession of Badamu during her life time and on her death it was recorded in the ownership and possession of her legal heirs, Biriya and Mathura, etc.. One of the plaintiffs, who stepped into the witness-box, namely PW-1 Maya Ram, very categorically stated in the examination-in-chief itself that for the last …4… two-three years the grass from the suit land was being removed by the defendants-respondents, though, according to him, stealthily. Admittedly, the suit land is not cultivated land but only grassland (Roota). The grass is being mowed from the suit land by the defendants-respondents, per admission of PW-1 Maya Ram, one of the plaintiffs, himself. 7. In view of the abovestated position, it is held that the two Courts below have rightly held that the possession of the suit land is with the defendants- respondents and, therefore, plaintiffs-appellants are not entitled to the relief of injunction. Consequently, all the three substantial questions of law, on which the appeal was admitted and which have been reproduced hereinabove, are answered against the plaintiffs-appellants. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of. March 16, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J