IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.174 of 2000 along with RSA No.175 of 2000. Judgment reserved on:21.3.2011. Date of Decision: 11.4.2011 RSA No.174 of 2000: Ram Ditta and others ..Appellants Versus Virender Kumar ..Respondent RSA No.175 of 2000: Ram Ditta and others ..Appellants Versus Smt.Jararu Devi and others ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant(s): Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr.B.K. Malhotra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of fact and law are involved in the same. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed two separate suits for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming that the suit land is owned and possessed by them and other co-sharers. Earlier this suit land alongwith other land was jointly owned by - 2 - one Bakshi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs, defendant Ram Ditta and Lajja Ram. Thereafter, the land was partitioned in consolidation proceedings and divided amongst all the three brothers. The defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land after the partition. However, since the defendants started interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs they were compelled to file the suits. 3. The defendants resisted the suits on various ground and according to the defendants no partition had taken place and it was also denied that Ram Ditta was owner of the suit land and it was averred that the partition proceedings did not attain finality. 4. Both the suits were decreed and the appeals filed by the defendants were dismissed. Hence, the present appeals. 5. The appeals were admitted on the following identical questions of law: “1.Whether both the learned courts below were right in placing reliance on Ex.PC which was not proved in accordance with law, thus admitting evidence which could not have been considered or relied upon? 2.Whether both the learned courts below were right in ignoring Ex.DB staying partition proceedings between the parties allegedly taken place during the consolidation - 3 - operations and the decision of which finally govern rights of the parties? 3.Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was pre- mature, the matter agitated before the revenue authorities and which was sub judice before the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, H.P.?” 6. In my view these are not questions of law but are pure questions of fact. Ext.PC is the copy of the Rapat Roznamcha Wakyaati which shows that pursuant to a warrant, possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show how this document has not been proved in accordance with law. 7. As far as Ext.DB is concerned it is an unattested photostat copy of some order. Even a certified copy has not been filed and therefore no reliance can be placed on this document. 8. The third substantial question of law does not arise at all. 9. In view of the above discussion, I find that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in these appeals. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. April 11, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV