IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RSA.No. 147/2008. Date of Decision :1st April, 2008. Dina Ram. ….Appellant. Versus: Prabhi Devi and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.Javed Khan, Advocate. . For Respondent. Sanjay Karol, J( Oral). Appellant/Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 327/99 seeking a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, on the strength of his ownership and possession which was dismissed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P vide judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2002. After considering the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit premises. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Fast Track court, Kangra at Dharamshala being Civil Appeal RBT No. 90/B/05/02 titled as Dina Ram Vs. Prabhi Devi and others. After appreciating the material on record the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the trial Court had rightly held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit premises. But, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? however, reversed the finding with regard to the ownership and held that in view of the documentary evidence being Ext. P-1, the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land. Relying upon the statements of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 as also document Ext.D-6/A (Revenue Record), the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit premises. The contention of the defendant that he had become owner by way of adverse possession was also rejected by the courts below. I see no ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Courts. For the recovery of the possession of the suit premises it would be open for the plaintiff to resort to such remedies as would be available to him in accordance with law. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. CMP.No. 230/2008. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, this application is also dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 1, 2008(R)