1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 246 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31st August, 2011 Inderjeet and others Appellants/defendants Versus Visheshwar Singh Respondent/plaintiff Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate, vice Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the defendants’ Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and possession of the suit land against defendants, appellants herein. Before the trial Court, appellants took up a plea of adverse possession and filed a counter claim seeking declaration with regard to their ownership. 2. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of possession as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit on account of his own act and conduct and deed? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction if so what is the correct value? OPD 8. Whether the defendants have become owner of the land comprised of Khasra No. 2407, 2408, 2409 and portion of Khasra No. 2580/2411 by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPD 3. Defendants’ counter claim was dismissed and plaintiff’s suit was decreed in terms of judgment and decree dated 29.12.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 81/2004, titled as Visheshwar Singh vs. Inderjeet and others, to the following effect:- “As per my findings on issues above, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed 3 against the defendants to the following effect:- a) the defendants are permanently restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff on the land comprised in khata No.544, Khatauni No. 632, Khasra numbers, 2407, 2408 and 2580/2411/3, situated in Mauja Nagwain, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. in any manner whatsoever. b) the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.2409 and 2580/2411/2 by demolition of the construction of the defendants standing on this land; c) the demarcation report Ex.PW4/A and tatima Ex.PW4/B shall form part and parcel of the decree sheet. d) The suit of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining land detailed in other khasra numbers, other than mentioned in a) and b) above, stands dismissed. e) The counter claim of the defendants that they have become the owner of the land comprised in khasra No.2407 to 2409 and 2580/2411/2 as detailed above, by way of adverse possession, is dismissed.” There is no other as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file 4 after completion be consigned to record room.” 4. Aggrieved thereof, defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Mandi. In terms of impugned judgment and decree dated 23.4.2011 the same stands dismissed. 5. Courts below have concurrently held that plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. On the basis of demarcation report (Ext.PW-5/A) carried out by Partap Singh (PW5) as also the evidence of independent witness Shri Gopal Singh Kataria (PW-4) and report Ext.PW-4/A, plaintiff was found to be possession of the suit land except to the extent of 1.57 sq. mts. on Khasra No. 2409 and 27.70 sq. mts. on Khasra No.2850/2411/2. Revenue record also reveals that plaintiff is in possession thereof. 6. Defendants through the testimony of their witnesses, Vinod Kumar (DW-1), Lal Singh (DW-2), Shiv Lal (DW-3) and Chamaru Ram (DW-4) could not prove as to in what manner and since when they were in possession of the entire suit land/property and how they perfected their title with respect thereto. Essential ingredients in their plea of adverse possession have also not been proved on record by the defendants either. 7. Consequently, no ground for interference is made out. I have not considered the legal question 5 about the maintainability of a single appeal. Record does not reveal that findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below are either perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of evidence or interpretation and application of law. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration and consequently, appeal is dismissed. 31st August, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.