IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 356 of 2011. Decided on: 27.10.2011. Ishwar Das & others. .…Appellants. Versus Smt. Suhri Devi … Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. S. D. Gill, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The appellants (defendants) are in appeal against concurrent findings of fact returned by both the learned trial courts below. The appeal is sought to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both the Ld. Courts below have ignored important oral and documentary evidence regarding adverse possession? 2. Whether both the Ld. Courts below are right in relying upon documents which have not been produced before the trial court? 3. Whether the Ld. Appellate Court mis- construed the pleadings of the parties resulting thereby in erroneous judgment which is unsustainable in the eyes of law? 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 4. Whether both the Ld. Courts below are justifying in deciding the matter in the absence of plaintiff’s statement while the plaintiff failed to stepped into the witness box? 2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein (plaintiff) for grant of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession by way of demolition in respect of the land bearing Khata No. 41 min, Khatuni No. 86 min, Khasra Nos. 201 and 203, measuring 14 marlas, situate at Tika Nadiana-Sadiana, Tehsil and District Hamirpur. The case of the plaintiff was that the land in dispute was allotted to her by the State Government being a landless person. The defendants claimed that they are in possession of the said land since time immemorial and have thus acquired title to the same by adverse possession. 3. However, their plea of adverse possession has not found favour with both the courts below and rightly so for the reason that at no point of time the alleged possession of the defendants was entered in the revenue record. 4. According to the defendants, the plaintiff did not enter the witness box to substantiate her case and instead chose to examine her brother. The record reveals that PW1, Shri Chhonki Ram, had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff as her General Power of Attorney. It being so, it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to have appeared as a witness. Even otherwise, the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants is not made out from the materials on record, as neither it is pleaded nor proved as to at what 3 point of time the possession of the defendants became adverse to the rightful owner, i.e., earlier the State of H.P. and thereafter the plaintiff. DW1, Shri Ishwar Dass (defendant No. 1) and DW2, Shri Gurbax, had categorically admitted that plaintiff is owner of the suit land. 5. All the questions raised by the plaintiff are in the nature of questions of fact. These cannot be said to be questions of law, much less substantial questions of law. 6. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit. (V.K. Sharma), Judge 27th October, 2011. (Sanjeev)