IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 147 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 29, 2010 Sh. Jagat Ram and another Appellants Versus Sh. Bidhi Chand and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants. : Mr. R. L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants. For the respondents : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the plaintiffs’ appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs’ suit for relief of declaration stands dismissed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Hamirpur, H.P. in terms of judgment dated 4.4.2007 passed in Civil Suit No. 225 of 1997. Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2007 also stands dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 1.10.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. Thus the appeal arises out of concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit land along with defendant No. 1. The claim is based on the Will and agreement dated 12.6.1964 and 18.10.1969 respectively executed by Smt. Parwati Devi in their favour. The plaintiff also claims to be in possession of the suit land alongwith defendant No. 1. The suit was resisted by defendants No.1 to 3 on the ground that during her life time Smt. Parwati Devi had executed a gift deed dated 22.11.1988 in their favour and as such they are in possession of the suit land. The agreement dated 18.10.1969 is denied by them. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for?” OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether a valid Will was executed on 18.10.1969 as alleged? OPD 6. Whether gift deed was executed on 22.11.1988 in favour of the defendants, as alleged? OPD 7. Relief.” 4. The trial Court disbelieved the Will propounded by the plaintiff. The gift deed (Ext. DW 2/A) was accepted to be genuine. 3 5. I have gone through the record minutely. Now gift deed Ext. DW 2/A stands duly proved by Sh. Bidhi Chand (DW-1), Sh. Mast Ram (DW-2) and Sh. Kishori Lal (DW-4). They have also proved the defendants’ possession on the suit land. Curiously before the lower appellate Court plaintiff based its case of title not on the Will but on the agreement (Ext. PW1/A). Now this agreement cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law. Agreement (Ext. PW 1/A) is an unregistered document. In any event, in the Court plaintiff has admitted defendant Sh. Bidhi Chand to be in possession of the suit land. 6. The Courts below have not found the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land. Hence the plaintiff’s plea that the possession of the suit land was delivered at the time of the execution of the Ext. PW 1/A is obviously false. It is not the plaintiff’s case that he has been disposed by the defendants. 7. From the record it could not be shown as to how the findings of fact returned by the Courts below are perverse, erroneous or illegal. 8. In the instant appeal no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is consequently dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 29, 2010 (PK)