IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Regular Second Appeal No. 212 of 1998. Reserved on: 11.8.2008. Decided on: 8.9.2008. __________________________________________________ Shri Nihalu and others. … Appellants. Versus Shri Sunder Ram … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1993. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake, had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and possession in the alternative. The suit was resisted by the appellants-defendants, hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake. The learned trial Court on the basis of ocular and documentary evidence decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on 1.12.1992. The defendants feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1992, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The learned District 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Judge, Bilaspur dismissed the appeal on 1.12.1997. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1997. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in the event of a conflict between the boundary and area, the natural boundary will prevail? 2. Whether the report of the Local Commissioner can be relied upon completely giving a go-by to the evidence led on record? Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are not sustainable. He then contended that both the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the parties. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. Since the substantial questions of law are inter-connected, these are taken up together for adjudication. The controversy in the present appeal falls in very narrow campus. The plaintiff has asserted that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 3-2-0 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 8 and 9 and the defendants, who own land adjacent to the suit land, are bent upon to encroach upon his land. The plaintiff has appeared as PW1. He has deposed that he is owner in possession of land measuring 3-2-0 bighas. He has further deposed that the defendants cause un-necessary interference over the suit land by teething their cattle in his land and also by damaging the retaining wall. He has also given a reference 3 to the report of the Local Commissioner (Ext.P1), statements of the parties recorded vide Ext.P2 and Tatima of the spot prepared by the Local Commissioner (Ext.P3). PW2 was appointed as Local Commissioner. He visited the spot and demarcated Khasra Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the presence of the parties on 27.4.1990. The demarcation was carried out after fixing permanent points. He found land measuring 1 biswa 6 biswansies comprised in Khasra No. 8 belonging to the plaintiff in possession of the defendants which he has reflected in the Tatima prepared at the spot with red ink as 8/1 and 8/2. He has deposed that the parties were present at the spot when the demarcation of the spot was carried out. He has proved the report Ext. P1, statement of parties Ext.P2 and Tatima of the spot Ext. P3. Defendant Deepu Ram has appeared as DW1. He has stated that the defendants had never caused any interference over the land of the plaintiff. He has asserted that there existed a ‘Beer’. On the upper side of this ‘Beer’, the defendants own their land, whereas on the lower side of the ‘Beer’, land of the plaintiff exists. According to DW1, this ‘Beer’ exists at the spot from the time of their forefathers. He has admitted that his land is situated near the suit land. He has further admitted the visit of the Tehsildar on the spot to conduct the demarcation. He has also admitted that he has not raised any objection at the time when the demarcation was carried out by the Tehsildar at the spot. The defendants have not filed any objections to the report of the Local Commissioner (Ext.P1). DW1 has admitted that he did not raise any objection qua demarcation conducted by the Tehsildar at the spot. The report of the Local Commissioner has been duly proved by him. The defendants had never claimed any right/ownership in any portion of Khasra No.8 either in the pleadings or in the evidence. The defendants rather had admitted 4 the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 8 and 9 in para 1 of the written statement. It is conclusively proved on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner which has been properly appreciated by the Courts below that the plaintiff is owner of entire Khasra No. 8 and the defendants have forcibly encroached upon the portion of the same shown with red ink in Tatima Ext. P3 as Khasra Nos. 8/1 and 8/2. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the parties. There is no substantial question of law involved in the regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. September 8, 2008. (cr)