IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 81 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.7.2011. Pyare Lal …Appellant. Versus Kamla Devi and another ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh , Judge ( Oral ) This appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 18.2.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan Camp at Nalagarh in Case No. 11FTN/13 of 2007 affirming judgment, decree dated 28.2.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh, District Solan in Civil Suit No. 47/1 of 2003. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Kaka predecessor of respondent No.1 had filed a suit for possession against appellant and proforma respondent No.2 regarding land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 254/266, Khasra No. 1290/1200/1009 measuring 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 2 biswas Village Baddi Sitalpur, vide jamabandi 1999-2000. The suit is based upon title. 3. The suit was contested by appellant. He took preliminary objection of maintainability and that no Tatima or boundaries have been mentioned in the plaint. He has stated that he has been allotted khasra Nos. 1202/1009/2/1 over which he has constructed his house. He has denied that he has encroached any land. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for possession on 28.2.2007. The appeal filed by the appellant in the lower Appellate Court has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 18.2.2008, hence second appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is a boundary dispute and predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1 has taken unilateral demarcation which is not binding on appellant. He has submitted that the adjacent land is owned and possessed by appellant and under the garb of decree passed by the two Courts below, there is likelihood that respondent No.1 will interfere over the land of the appellant. The apprehension of the appellant is totally misplaced, the suit has been decreed for specific khasra number. In jamabandi Ex.P-2, the suit land has been shown by Kh. No. 1290/1200/1009 and in the column of ownership Kaka has been shown owner of the suit land. 5. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record in decreeing the suit. It has not been shown that the two Courts below have ignored some material evidence or considered inadmissible evidence nor decree is shown to be perverse. The 3 reappreciation of evidence is not possible in second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. CMP No. 139 of 2010 The application is disposed of in view of dismissal of the appeal. July 13, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.