IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A.No. 255 of 1997. Decided on: 30.4.2008 Rafia …Appellant. Versus Parkash Chand ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. V.D.Khidtta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge- 1, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No.55-J/96 dated 28.2.1997. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the Second Appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) had filed a suit against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendant’ for convenience sake) for vacant possession of the land as detailed in the plaint. The defendant filed written statement to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, partly decreed the suit on 31.5.1996. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1996 in the Court of learned ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala on 10.9.1996. The learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala dismissed the appeal on 28.2.1997. Hence this Regular Second appeal. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate had strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the learned Courts below have mis-appreciated and mis-construed the report Ext.PW3/A and report of the Local Commissioner dated 16.7.1990. Mr. V.D.Khidtta, Advocate had supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of misreading and misappreciationof oral and documentary evidence led by the parties particularly Ext.PW3/A, Ext.D1, Exts. P1 to P3, Ext.DW2/A and the report of the Local Commissioner dated 16.7.90 ? 2. Whether any reliance could have been placed by the learned Courts below on the demarcation reports produced on record when it had been conclusively proved that the said demarcations were carried without fixing pucca points and also not conducted on the basis of aks-musabi ? 3 Whether the suit for min khasra number was maintainable when the said Khasra number did not exist in the revenue record nor any tatima was filed or proved to identify the same and whether any executable decree could have been passed ? Since these questions are inter-connected, they are taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 3 The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has testified that the defendant had illegally and forcibly took possession of the suit land in the month of January, 1989 by extending the fence. PW-3 is the Kanungo, who had submitted his report Ext.PW-3/A. The demarcation report Ext.PW3/A has been prepared by Mehar Singh, Kanungo as per directions of the Tehsildar Jabli. It has come in this report that the suit land to the extent of 0-00-13 HM was encroached by the defendant. Ext.P-1, discloses the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. The trial Court had also appointed a Local Commissioner. The report was submitted by the Local Commissioner on 16.7.1990. In this report also, the defendant has been shown to be in illegal possession of the land. It is evident from the revenue record produced by the parties and the oral evidence that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and as per the reports Ext.PW-3/A and the report of Local Commissioner, the defendant had encroached upon the suit land. The veracity of the Local Commissioner report has not been assailed by the defendant before the appellate Court. The entries in favour of the plaintiff has also not been assailed and rebutted by the defendant before the Courts below. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate also argued that there was no proper identification of the suit land and thus the suit could not be decreed. It is evident from the reports Ext.PW-3/A and Local Commissioner’s report dated 16.7.1990 that the suit land had been properly identified and demarcation has been carried out in accordance with law. The parties were satisfied with both these reports. Consequently, it is held that there was proper identification of the suit land. In view of the observations made hereinabove, there are no substantial questions of law involved in this appeal and the findings 4 recorded by the lower Courts are pure findings of the facts and the same will not be interfered by this Court in the Second Appeal. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. April 30, 2008. (GR)