IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 306 of 1997 Date of decision:22.5.2008 ______________________________________________________ Sunder Ram Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajnish K. Lal and Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for respondent No. 1. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, dated 3.9.1997, affirming the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Ghumarwin, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 3-19 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 48/1. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 are legal heirs of late Kirpa Ram who died on13.4.1984. It was alleged that before his death, Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Kirpa Ram had applied for grant of Nautor land measuring 3-19 Bighas and the same was granted to him on 25.4.1971. Patta was also granted in favour of said Kirpa Ram who got possession also and after the death of Kirpa Ram, plaintiff being his L.R. are entitled to Patta and possession of the suit land. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession. Defendant No.1/State of H.P. pleaded that the plaintiff and his father Kirpa Ram had applied under Nautor Rules for the grant of suit land and inadvertently on 25.4.1971, the suit land was sanctioned in favour of both of them. It was alleged that the plaintiff possessed the suit land and he was in possession of it as per entries in copy of Jamabandi and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed by him. Proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against ex parte. The suit was tried by the learned trial Court and it was held that the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff separately and possession was also delivered to him and the allotment of the land made in favour of his father was cancelled by the Financial Commissioner. Therefore, it was held that the plaintiff and proforma defendants were not entitled for the possession of the suit land which was already delivered to the plaintiff in separate allotment. The suit was accordingly dismissed, which findings were affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court on appeal. A perusal of the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court shows that it had referred to the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties. The learned first Appellate Court had further observed that the plaintiff 3 has failed to prove that the land was granted in favour of his father as Nautor and no Patta has been placed on the Court file. On the other hand, the order of Financial Commissioner shows that the sanction of Nautor land in favour of Kirpa Ram was cancelled. Thus, it was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove anything on record that the suit land was granted in favour of his father and the plaintiff and proforma defendants were entitled to inherit the same being his legal heirs. During the course of arguments, no such oral or documentary was referred to, which was not considered by the Courts below so as to hold that there is mis-appreciation of evidence. The appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law framed by the appellant, namely, that documents Ext. P-1 to P-3 have been misconstrued by the Court and the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the land left by his father. No substantial question of law arises leading to the conclusion that there has to be reappraisal of the evidence. Once both the Courts below have considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and have come to a definite conclusion and there has been no misreading of evidence or the Courts below have not omitted to consider the oral or documentary evidence, there cannot be reappraisal of the evidence sitting in second appeal. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly, hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. May 22, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (BSS) Judge