IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 200 of 2010. Decided on: 29.06.2010. _____________________________________________________ Kewal Krishan. …Appellant. -Versus- Parmodh Chand. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated, 02.02.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 182 of 2007. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondent/counter-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the counter-plaintiff for brevity sake”), has filed a Counter Claim, stating that he was the owner in possession of the suit land and the appellant/counter-defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the counter-defendant”), was wrongly shown to be tenant in possession of the suit land. Earlier, the suit land was bearing Khasra No.1891/1049. The counter-defendant, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. in connivance with the settlement staff, got himself recorded to be in possession of the suit land. The counter-claim was opposed by the counter-defendant by filing a written statement. It was asserted therein that the counter-plaintiff was aware of the settlement operation and the correction of the revenue entries was made in the presence of counter-plaintiff. The counter-claim of the counter-plaintiff was decreed for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and the counter- defendant was having no right over the same with the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the counter-defendant from interfering with the suit land in any manner whatsoever. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2007, the counter-defendant has preferred an appeal bearing No. 182 of 2007 before the learned District Jude, Hamirpur. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur dismissed the appeal on 02.02.2010. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2010 by the present appellant/counter-defendant. The notice was issued by this Court on 10.05.2010, returnable for 28.06.2010. 4. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are contrary to the evidence on record. According to him, both the Courts below have wrongly ignored Ext.-D5, i.e, copy of Misal Hakiat for the year 1982-1983. According to him, the counter-defendant has proved his possession over the suit land on the basis of Jamabandi for the year 1998-1999, Ext.-D3. 5. Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. Counter-plaintiff has appeared as DW-1. He deposed that he is in possession of the suit land. According to him, adjoining to the suit land, there was land of Amar Nath, over which Kacha shops were situated. These shops collapsed about 20-25 years back. He was serving in the Education Department. He retired from service in the year 1990. According to him, the settlement took place at Hamirpur in the year 1982-83. However, no notice was given to him by the settlement staff and he was not aware of the correction. He moved application for the correction of the revenue entries, however, the same was dismissed. In cross- examination, he has admitted that he had filed an appeal before the S.D.M., Hamirpur. 8. DW-2, Ranjha Ram, has supported the statement of counter-plaintiff. He deposed that he had removed the debris lying on the suit land. According to him, counter-plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68, Ext-D1, the suit land was owned and possessed by Parmodh Chand. The same entry existed in the Jamabandis for the years 1978-1979, 1972-1973, Exts.-D2 & D4. In the Misal Hakiat for the year 1982-1983, Ext-D5, the same entry existed in favour of the counter-plaintiff. It was only in Jamabandi for the year 1988-1989, that the counter-defendant has been shown to be the tenant of the suit land in the shops. The counter-defendant has not placed any tangible material on record to establish how the entry was abruptly changed in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-1989, whereby he was shown owner of the suit land. Counter-defendant has also not placed any material on record to establish that notice was issued to the counter-plaintiff before the change was effected in the revenue record. It was necessary for the counter-defendant also to place on record orders passed by the competent authority, on the basis of which, the revenue entries were changed. The counter-defendant has also not placed on record any mutation order issued by revenue authority. In view of this, the reliance is required to be put on the earlier revenue entries in favour of counter-plaintiff. Therefore, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of material placed on record and there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 29, 2010. (bhupender)