IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 147 of 1996 Date of decision July 10, 2008. RSA No. 147 of 1996 Hans Raj ….Appellant Versus Savitri Devi (deceased) through Legal Representatives ….Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Shri Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by defendant against the concurrent finding of two Courts below decreeing the suit of plaintiff for possession after demolition and permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from raising any construction on the suit land. On the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court on the vital issue of title held that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant had been unable either to oust the title of plaintiff/respondent or his possessory right. The appeal preferred in the Court of Addl. D.J. (II) Kangra at Dharamshala was dismissed affirming the judgment of the trial Court. The point urged for consideration of the appellate Court was that the finding of the learned trial Court on the compromise dated 15.4.1988 was not correct as the compromise was not entered into between the parties. The learned appellate court noticed and rightly so that in an application for partition Ext.PW2/A, both the parties had entered into a lawful compromise and Tehsildar also visited the spot on 15.4.1998 to effect the compromise which was accepted by both the parties. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 This appeal was admitted by this court on 14.5.1997 on question Nos. 2 and 3 as filed at page 6 namely:- 2. Whether Courts below are justified in drawing a presumption of truth in favour of the defendant-respondent vis-à-vis the revenue record when the defendant respondent had failed to prove or failed to lead any evidence to show that she was allotted land in question? 3. Whether there has been gross misreading of documents Ext.PW2/A, Ext.PW2/B by the Courts below and if so its effect and what is the effect of completely ignoring documents Ext.D1 to Ext.D3? Considering question No.2, first I find that the learned trial Court after consideration of the entire evidence has held that a compromise was entered into between the parties with respect to the suit land and it was partitioned with their consent and also that of all other co-sharers. This partition was effected by the Tehsildar who had visited the spot and recorded the statements of the parties which facts could not be dislodged even in this Court. The learned trial Court held that DW-1 Hans Raj defendant (appellant herein) admitted that he had no interest in the Khasra of the suit land, in these proceedings; the Tehsildar had visited the spot on 15.4.1998 and he was present there at the relevant time although he denied that any compromise was arrived at but admitted that land was partitioned and statement Ext. PW-2/C was correctly recorded by the Tehsildar. Further, Ext. PW-2/B, which is the decision of the Tehsildar in the partition proceedings, could not be proved to be wrong or against the facts. All these findings have been re-affirmed by the appellate Court. In view of this, it cannot be said that the findings are perverse or that questions of law as urged arise for determination in this appeal. There is no misreading of Ext. PW-2/A which is a joint application made by the parties for partition of the land and Ext. PW-2/B, the decision of the Tehsildar on this application, which belies the case as set up by the defendant. Having admitted to the partitioning of the land, it is not open to the defendant to turn around and base his case as if no partition proceedings had taken 3 place. The purported reliance placed on the revenue record will not improve the case of defendant especially in the face of admissions which have been made by him. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. July 10, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge