HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No.: 73 of 2007 Reserved on: 10.3.2008 Decided on: 17.3.2008 Moti Ram ………Appellant. Versus Chamno and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 5: Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is a second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the court of learned District Judge, Chamba, dated 16.11.2006, vide which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chamba, dated 31.8.2005, was affirmed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession alleging that he is joint owner in possession of the land as detailed in the plaint to the extent of 1/6th share and mutation No.184, dated 11.10.1996, was prayed to be set aside and the subsequent ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - entries excluding the name of the plaintiff from the revenue record be held as illegal and wrong. The plaintiff claimed that Dilia, father of the plaintiff, was owner in possession of the suit land and after his death, the defendants got the mutation sanctioned in their favour in collusion with the revenue staff excluding the plaintiff, who was in service. The plaintiff claimed that he is also the heir of Dilia and as such had filed the suit for declaration and possession. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was son of Dilia and since defendants No.1 to 5 claimed that they succeeded to the property of Dilia being his legal heirs, the mutation was rightly attested in their favour. The learned trial court framed the issues including in regard to the question as to whether the plaintiff was also joint owner in possession of the land in suit and the mutation was wrongly attested. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court which findings were affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. Heard. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the plaintiff was never summoned by the Revenue Officers before the mutation was attested in regard to the estate of Dilia. He also pleaded that he had filed the copies of Pariwar Register Ext.PA and Ext.PB, but inspite of oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff, both the courts below have disbelieved the case putforth by the plaintiff, which findings are liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents were that all the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel - 3 - during the course of arguments are on findings of fact recorded by both the courts below and since all the oral as well as documentary evidence was discussed by the learned trial court, no case is made out for reappraisal of the evidence by this court in second appeal. During the course of arguments, no particular document has been referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant to show that the same was not considered by the courts below. No specific evidence was also pointed out which was not discussed by the learned trial court calling for reappraisal of the evidence. In regard to the copies of the Pariwar Register Ext.PA and Ext.PB, which were referred to during the course of arguments that these be seen, a perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court in para 8 shows that the copies of the Pariwar Register Ext.PA and Ext.PB were referred to by the learned trial Court. Both these documents were proved in the statement of PW 4, which was referred to in para 12 of the judgment by the learned trial court. The learned trial court had referred to the discrepancies in the Pariwar Register and the copies proved and in view of the cuttings in the original register, these entries were not relied upon in favour of the plaintiff. A perusal of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court also shows that both these documents were discussed in detail in para 21 of the judgment and these documents were not relied upon by the First Appellate also to hold that the case of the plaintiff stood proved. In view of the fact that the documents referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant had been duly considered by both the courts below, it cannot be said that there has been misreading of evidence by the courts below - 4 - calling for reappraisal of the evidence by this Court. This Court cannot reconsider the evidence until and unless it is proved that the learned trial court had failed to consider some documents or not considered the oral evidence calling for reappraisal of the evidence. The substantial questions of law as framed at page 10, are mainly in regard to the misreading and misappreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, but these questions do not arise in view of the above discussion since the evidence was discussed by both the courts below. Therefore, no case is made out for the admission of appeal at this stage and as such the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed, which is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. March 17, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.