IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 500 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 23 , 2011 Ramesh Chand Appellant Versus Devki Devi Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondent : Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, for the respondent. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the defendant’s regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below. Plaintiff’s suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from raising construction and changing the nature of the suit land stands decreed in terms of judgment and decree dated 30.5.2009 passed Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 83/01 of 2005, titled as Devki Devi versus Ramesh Chand. Findings of facts, judgment and decree stand affirmed by the lower appellate Court in terms of judgment and decree dated 12.8.2010, passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2009, titled as Ramesh Chand versus Devki Devi. 2. Based on the respective pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Relief.” 3. Plaintiff’s contention that they are in joint ownership of the suit land cannot be disputed keeping in view the admissions made by the defendant to the effect that partition proceedings with respect to the very same land, which in the revenue record (Ext. PA) is reflected to be in joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff, are pending before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Record reveals that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff, defendant and other persons. Also plaintiff’s witnesses Smt. Devki 3 Devi (PW-1) and Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW-2), who in fact is the real aunt of defendant Sh. Ramesh Chand, have supported the plaintiff’s case of joint ownership and possession. 4. Defendant’s plea that the suit land stood partitioned by the predecessor-in-interest of their grand-mother Smt. Hardei, through whom they claim their interest stands rejected by the Courts. The same was found not to have been proved on record. 5. As such, no error can be found in judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. Parties being in joint ownership and possession, defendant alone cannot raise construction over the suit land by felling trees till such time suit property is partitioned in accordance with law. 6. My attention has been invited to the earlier judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. It pertains to the suit land. Significantly in none of the earlier litigations, Courts have held the defendant to be in exclusive ownership or possession of the suit land. As such findings returned therein have no bearing in the instant lis. 7. From the record it could not be shown as to in what manner concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below are erroneous or perverse. It cannot be said that Courts below have failed to take into account or correctly appreciate evidence (oral and documentary) placed on record by the parties. It also cannot be said that provisions of law have either not been correctly appreciated, misinterpreted or wrongly applied to the instant facts. 4 8. As such, I am of the considered view that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 23 , 2011 (PK)