IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 349 of 1999. Judgement reserved on: 9.3.2009 Date of decision: 13.3.2009. Chint Ram ….. Appellant. Vs. Jai Ram & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgement shall dispose of RSA No. 349 of 1999 arising out of judgement, decree dated 28.6.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur confirming judgement, decree dated 25.3.1992 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Ghumarwin in case No. 222/1 of 1988. 2. The facts in brief are that appellant had filed a suit for declaration that he has become owner by virtue of adverse possession of land measuring 2 bighas comprised in khasra No. 219, khewat No. 42 min, khatauni No. 76 min, Mauza Chhajoti, Pargna Baseh, District Bilaspur with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. It has been submitted that appellant is in possession of suit land since the year 1970 and has become owner Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… by way of adverse possession. Daroga Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 to 5 and Jai Ram forcibly entered into the suit land and cut grass therefrom. The appellant has also constructed a house on the suit land. The entries in favour of Daroga Ram as owner are wrong and illegal. 3. The suit was contested by filing a written statement in which preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction, non- joinder of necessary parties, lack of proper verification, estoppel, lack of cause of action, valuation were taken. On merits, it has been submitted that Daroga Ram is owner in possession of the suit land and Jai Ram being a member of family is also in possession of the suit land. The appellant has no right, title on the suit land. The appellant had made an application before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade stating therein that he had been paying rent to respondents, which was dismissed. The appellant filed replication and reiterated his case. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit on 25.3.1992 and in appeal the learned District Judge on 28.6.1999 confirmed the judgement and decree dated 25.3.1992, hence this appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in view of the fact that the plaintiff was in open, continuous and adverse possession of the land since 1970 and has raised a costly house thereon, the plaintiff had become owner by way of adverse possession and the presumption truth attached to the jamabandis, P-4, P-5, P-1, P-2 and Kh. Girdawari P-3 and P-8 stood rebutted by statements of PW-1 to PW-4? …3… 2. Whether in view of the long and admitted settled possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to decree for declaration and injunction as prayed for and the defendants could forcibly dispossess the plaintiff? 3. Whether the findings of the court below are vitiated for misconstruction of oral and documentary evidence and the defendants had lost title in the property? 4. I have heard Mr. K.D. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that two courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record. It has been submitted that presumption of truth attached to jamabandies Ex. P 1, Ex. P 2, Ex. P 4, Ex. P 5 and khasra girdawari Ex. P 3 and Ex. P 8 stood rebutted by the statements of Ex. PW 1 to PW 4. The oral and documentary evidence has not been appreciated properly by the courts below. Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3: 5. The substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3 are interconnected, therefore, all of them are being taken up together for disposal. The appellant has taken the plea that he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The appellant in paragraph No.3 of the plaint on the point of adverse possession has only pleaded that he is in possession of the land in dispute as owner and he is openly in adverse possession without any hindrance. How he is in adverse possession and since when he is in adverse …4… possession that has not been pleaded by him. He has, however, pleaded that since last eighteen years Daroga Ram is not coming in possession of the suit land. The revenue record is not supporting the appellant inasmuch as in the jamabandies of the suit land, Daroga Ram has been recorded as owner in possession of the suit land. DW 1 Jai Ram has stated that appellant earlier had filed an application before Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta, which was dismissed. He has placed on record a copy of order Ex. P 1 and copy of application Ex. P 2. Ex. P 2 is the certified copy of application dated 24.5.1988 made by the appellant for correction of revenue entries regarding khasra No. 219 measuring 2 bighas. In paragraph-3 of application Ex. P 2, it has been stated that applicant is in possession of the land in dispute as non-occupancy tenant. 6. PW 1 Chint Ram in his cross-examination had shown his ignorance that he had filed an application regarding the suit land before the Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta. The perusal of order dated 25.3.1989 Ex. P 1 would show that appellant had filed an application for correction of revenue entries regarding the suit land before Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Jhandutta. This application was returned by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade on some technical ground but fact remains that appellant had filed an application Ex. P 2 for correction of revenue entries before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, in which he has stated that he had been coming in possession of the suit land as tenant. This completely demolishes the case of the appellant regarding his adverse possession on the suit land. …5… 7. The appellant has pleaded that he has constructed a house on the suit land but no worth believing evidence has been led by the appellant in support of this contention. He has not produced any evidence showing that the said house is having electricity connection, water facility etc., which would have thrown some light on the claim of appellant. The two courts below have concurrently held that appellant is not in adverse possession of the suit land. It is a finding of fact. It has not been shown that finding of fact recorded by the two courts below on adverse possession is vitiated by ignoring material evidence or taking into inadmissible evidence. In second appeal the evidence cannot be re-appreciated. The appellant has failed to make out any case for interference. Resultantly, the substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3 are decided against the appellant. 8. No other point was urged. 9. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. March 13 , 2009 ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.