IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. 72 of 1997 Date of decision 27.2.2008. Sohanu @ Sohan Lal ….Appellant. Versus Vijay Kumar @ Pali and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate alongwith Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff praying for a decree(s) declaring him to be the owner of the suit land on the basis of his adverse possession and declaration that Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - the sale deed dated 25.7.1985 by virtue of which the defendants have derived title be declared null and void and consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff approached the trial Court on the allegations:- “that land comprised in khata khatauni No. 46/216 min Nos. khasra 389 measuring 0-00-88 hectare, situated in village Sarkaghat Notified Area Committee, Sarkaghat recorded in the ownership of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 4 to 6 and in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff., Sale deed dated 25.7.1985 made by the defendant No. 6 in favour of the defendant No. 1 to 3 were to be declared null and void.” The learned trial court on the vital issue as to whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit land from the date he is alleged to have ousted his other co-owners and the second issue as to whether the sale deed on the basis of which the defendants- respondents claimed their title was null and void; held against the plaintiff. An appeal carried to the learned District Judge proved - 3 - unsuccessful. The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court. The appeal was admitted on three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation as well as mis-appreciation of documents Ext. D1 the alleged affidavit signed by the appellant dated 24th July, 1985? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation as well as misappreciation of the document Ext. DW-2/A, the alleged agreement, having been executed by Lila and Santi in favour of defendant No. 3? 3. Whether the findings of the Courts below in dismissing the suit of the appellant by holding that the appellant had failed to prove the adverse possession are sustainable especially when the possession of the appellant is consistently recorded since the year 1960 onwards as is clear from Ext. P1 Jamabandi for the year 1959-60, Ext. P3 and P4 copy of Misal Hikit Bandobast Jadid and copy of jamabandi for the year 1980 showing the possession of the appellant over the land in dispute since its purchase with effect from 8th June, 1960?” - 4 - Taking up questions 1 and 2 together, all that need be said is that Ex. D-1 was considered by the learned trial Court holding that Ex.D-1, an affidavit, was given by the plaintiff voluntarily and that there is no misrepresentation, fraud etc. A reading of Ex.DW-2/A also shows that it has been properly interpreted by the learned Courts below and there is nothing on record to indicate that the document has been read / interpreted in a manner by ascribing to it a meaning which was never intended to be done. The agreements and sale deeds Ex. D-5, D-6 and D-7 and Ex. D-2, D-3 and D-4 executed in favour of the defendants and the mainstay of their title have not been disproved. The learned District Judge on a detailed consideration of the evidence and facts on record clearly held that the appellant was a co owner of the land and there was nothing on record to suggest that his purported possession was of such a nature which constituted adverse possession by satisfying the requirements of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In order to consider as to whether the findings of the two Courts below are correct and are substantiated by the material on record, I have gone through the oral - 5 - and documentary evidence and can not persuade myself to take a different view. I do realize that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court has limited jurisdiction, yet in order to satisfy my judicial conscience, I had considered the record as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below are based on sound appreciation of evidence and there is nothing perverse about them. Question No. 3 which has been urged is nothing but redetermination of questions of fact which has been held against the appellant by the two Courts below. This Court cannot while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure reappreciate evidence. Questions of law are determined on established facts and not on hypothetical principles urged. As held, the facts do not indicate or require re-determination in view of the questions urged. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. February 27, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.