Whether reporters of the Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2009. Decided on: July 26, 2010. Smt. Sushila Devi. …… Appellant. Versus Shashi Kant Bhatnagar. …….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The present regular second appeal has been filed against the reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 2. Heard on admission and perused the record of Courts below. 3. The appellant was a plaintiff before the trial Court. She sought a decree of permanent injunction qua Khasra No.1165, a vacant space measuring 0-01-08 HM Abadi deh, against the defendant-respondent. She averred that the suit Khasra was purchased by her in the year 1997 from one Krishan Gopal and constructed two shops thereon towards - 2 - western portion of the land and the remaining land was lying vacant, over which there is a threatened interference from the respondent. 3. In the written statement, the defendant- respondent claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the vacant land. He disputed the fact that Shashi Kumar from whom the respondent allegedly purchased the land was not the owner of the land in dispute and sale in favour of Sushila appellant is void. He claimed that the respondent had wrongly included the said area owned and possessed by him as it being his ancestral property. He specifically averred that he raised the construction upto roof level over the said land by raising pillars and questioned the locus-standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. He further averred that the suit Khasra is a large area of the entire portion of the Kotla town wherein he also resides. Thus no relief can be granted to the appellant. 4. The parties were at issues. On the conclusion of the trial, the suit was decreed on account of the findings on issues No.1,2 and 4 in favour of the appellant. Thus, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree, the defendant-respondent assailed it in appeal before the first appellate Court. After re-examining the evidence on record, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal, reversed the findings and the - 3 - impugned judgment and decree were set-aside and the suit of the appellant herein was dismissed, hence she filed the present appeal. 5. The suit land is “Abadi Deh”. The respondent claimed his possession right from his ancestors and denied the possession of the appellant. The statement of PW3 Krishan Gopal her own witness is quite decisive. He categorically stated that he did not transfer any land in favour of his son Shashi Kumar from whom appellant is alleged to have purchased the land. When he did not have any right to the said land, he could not have sold any portion thereof to the appellant. PW3 aforesaid admitted that the land measuring 48ft x 48 ft was gifted by the ancestors of Shri Shashi Kant vide Gift Deed Ex.PW3/A on the north of which is shamlat area, on the south National Highway and on the west side, there is shop of Hiru Lal Kalal. The dimension shown in the Sale Ded Ex.PW2/A did not tally with the aforesaid land. 6. Perusal of the testimony of PW4 Shashi Kumar shows that he is also not aware of the location of the property. Whereas Shashi Kant defendant-respondent as DW-1 stated that he had constructed a Danga and raised the pillars upto the roof level. The possession of the respondent has also been proved by his witnesses DW-2 Kailash Chand and DW-3 Desh Raj, his immediate neighbours. The respondent’s witnesses - 4 - have admitted about raising the shops by Sushila, but denied her possession over the alleged vacant land. In fact “abadi deh” land belongs to the proprietary body of a particular village. 7. The plaintiff-appellant has failed to show her possession of the disputed land. She also failed to prove her own case as propounded in the plaint. The first appellate Court took note of all these facts and rightly returned the findings in favour of the respondent and allowed the appeal. I do not find any illegality therein and there is no substantial question of law, which requires determination, as such, the appeal is dismissed in liminie. C.M.P.No.895 of 2009. Dismissed. (Surinder Singh ) Judge July 26, 2010. (Pds)