IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 6 of 2008 Date of decision: 1.9.2008. State of H.P. and another ….Appellant Versus Bishan Singh and others. ….Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Shri Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents: Shri Bimal Gupta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner has appealed against the judgment of two Courts below granting a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the house situated on the suit land. The plaintiffs filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, on the allegations that they are joint owners in possession of the suit land and the built up structure compromised on the suit land. Earlier their fore fathers were in possession of this land. Their possession is being uninterrupted. Notice was issued by the PWD authorities calling upon them to vacate the premises within a period of 24 hours failing which they will be forcibly ejected them from the suit premises. Bishan Singh PW1 appeared as his own witness and proved that their fore fathers and after them the plaintiffs are in possession of the land and building since the last 70/80 years and notice Ext.PW1/B issued by the appellants herein calling upon them to vacate the land within 24 hours is against law and 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 facts. The learned trial Court, on the basis of revenue record Ext.PW1/A showing the possession of the defendants and the evidence of DW4 Gopal Singh who proved that the respondents-plaintiffs were consuming the electricity in the demised premises, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the appellants herein from taking forcible possession of the house subject matter of the suit. The case set up by defendants that they were in possession of the premises was not accepted by learned Courts below. DW2 Ramesh Kumar tried to prove that he had been residing in this premises which according to him is a gang hut but he was unable to prove this fact on record nor did he produce any receipt of rent/payment or deduction of rent from his salary. The appeal filed before the District Judge though was barred by time yet an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed. The learned District Judge reappreciated the entire evidence and conclusively held that the defendants had been unable to establish the possessory title to the land and the revenue record was against the appellant herein. A number of questions have been raised by the appellant herein for consideration of this Court. Questions No.1 and 4 reiterate that evidence should be reappreciated by this Court. On the question of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Court below held that an application under Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and therefore, no notice under Section 80 was required. Both the Court below having concurrently found against the defendants, no question of law at least substantial question of law arises for determination. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. September 1, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge 3