IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.352 of 1995. Date of Decision: 19th April, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Shri Subhash Chander and others ..Appellants. Versus Shri Jasbir Singh and others ..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellants: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For respondents No.2, 3(a) & 3(b): Mr. ONkar Jairath, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) In this Regular Second Appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated: 1. Whether the Court below erred in law in not getting the property demarcated in accordance with the Rules and Orders of the High Court when there was bonafide dispute of boundary? 2. Whether wrong inferences have been drawn from the facts proved on record and the evidence has been misread and misconstrued which has vitiated the findings? Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court and hereinafter they will be referred as such. They failed in both the Courts below. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the defendants’, seeking the relief of permanent injunction on the ground of interference by the defendants with respect to the land denoted by points ABCDE in the site plan which, according to the plaintiffs is a part of Khasra No.2711 owned and possessed by them. 4. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendants. According to them, the mother of defendant No.3 had purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed in the year 1965 from one Shri Jiwand Singh, who was an auction-purchaser and that the fruit trees were planted by them and also that a ‘Pucca’ latrine was constructed about twenty years back. In alternative, took up the plea of adverse possession. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief, as alleged? OPP. - 3 - 2) Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 4) Whether the defendants are in possession as owners of the suit land as alleged? OPD. 5) If issue No.4 is not proved whether the defendants have become owners by adverse possession of suit land? OPD. 6) Relief. 6. Finding on issues No.1 to 3 were returned, by the learned trial Court against the plaintiffs and with respect to other issues against the defendants, thus, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed mainly on the ground of identification of the land. Dismissal of the suit was unsuccessfully challenged by the plaintiffs in appeal before the learned District Judge. 7. Shri K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the identification of the land stands established by oral evidence and that in case of any ambiguity demarcation should have been got conducted by the Court in order to identify the land particularly when the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs qua suit khasra is not denied. 8. Contra, learned Counsel for the defendants while supporting the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts, which cannot be - 4 - interfered with, in Second Appeal, more specifically when the plaintiffs have failed to point out the mis- appreciation of evidence. It is also submitted that it is not the duty of the Court to get the land demarcated to prove the case of the plaintiffs when they have failed to establish its identity and the interference as alleged by the defendants. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully examined the record. 10. The perusal of the record shows that an application was moved for the spot inspection by the defendants, even this was resisted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged interference over the piece of land denoted by points ABCDE mentioned in the self- prepared sketch-map by the plaintiffs and claimed it to be a part of khasra No.2711, but there is no evidence worth the name that this parcel of land is a part of suit khasra and they also did not make any attempt to get the land demarcated before filing the suit or even thereafter. 11. Precisely, khasra No.2711 is proved to have been owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, but as already stated above the points ABCDE are not proved to be its part. - 5 - 12. In appeal the learned District Judge, against the above proved facts and circumstances found it difficult to hold that the impugned land is a part of suit khasra. It is also equally true that the defendants also failed to prove it to have been purchased by Jiwand Singh in a public-auction and thereafter by the mother of defendant No.3 as alleged. Therefore, no relief can be granted to either of the parties. In my considered opinion, it was not incumbent upon the Courts below to get the suit land demarcated when the interference by the defendants in suit Khasra is also not proved. 13. For the above stated reasons, I do not find that the learned Courts below have drawn wrong inferences from the evidence on record. 14. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. 15. No other point urged before me. 16. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Costs on parties. April 19, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.