11.7.2008. Present: Mr.H.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Appellants. None for the respondents. RSA.No. 14/1998. The matter was listed on 4th July, 2008 when none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Today again the matter was called out on number of occasions when again there has been no representation on their behalf. Mr.Tarlok Nath-appellant No.3 is present in Court today and under instructions from him Mr.Bhardwaj, learned counsel has submitted that the matter between the parties stands compromised as is evident from order dated 3rd July, 1998 passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Una, District Una in Case No. 36-I- 87, whereby the payments were made to the plaintiffs/respondents who had filed criminal case against the defendants/appellants herein. It is for this reason that the plaintiffs are not coming forward to oppose the present appeal. Mr.Som Nath, Kishan Chand, Sohan Lal, Smt. Mansa Devi, Asha Deep and Des Raj as plaintiffs filed a suit against Shri Dina Nath, Yog Raj, Tarlok Nath, Prem Nath and Jamna Devi as defendants for possession by removal of super structure on the land denoted in the site plan (Ext.P-1) by A.B.C.D., situated in village Palkawah, Majra Kante Sub Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’ The said suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the land in question being Abadi Deh the defendants have constructed a pucca structure in accordance with the law. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: 1.Whether site marked ABCD form part of plaintiffs property, as alleged?. …OPP. 2.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? …OPP. 3.Relief. Appreciating the material on record and the statements of plaintiffs witnesses S/Sh. Som Nath (PW-1), Shiv Singh (PW-2), Jagat Singh (PW-4), Bishan Dass (PW-5), Gurmail Singh (PW6) and also the statements of the defendants’ witnesses Sh. Tarlok Nath (DW-1), Baldev Singh (DW-2) and Telu Ram (DW- 3), the trial court decreed the suit. The judgment and decree dated 18th June, 1990 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class (I), Una in Case No. 49 of 1987 was assailed by the defendants by way of an appeal No. 196 of 1990/ RBT. No. 61/94 titled as Dina Nath and others Vs. Som Nath and others which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, (I), Una in terms of its judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1997. The first appellate Court upheld the finding returned by the court below. The defendants impugned the said judgment in the present proceedings. The parties to the lis are collateral. It is also not in dispute that the land in question is Abadi Deh. Sh. T.N.Vaidya the then learned Additional District Judge, Una, after affording due opportunity and issuing advance notice personally visited the spot and came to the conclusion that new construction raised by the appellants was absolutely in line with the existing wall owned and possessed by the plaintiffs/respondents. The court below has totally ignored this aspect of the matter. As far as Abadi Deh land is concerned, the appellant admittedly being in possession thereof are entitled to use the same without any let or hindrance. In this view of the mater, the judgments passed by the courts below needs to be set aside. The question of law is answered accordingly. Additionally, the matter between the parties stands compromised and the present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 11, 2008(R)