IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 330 of 1999. Judgement reserved on: 23.6.2009. Date of decision: June 24, 2009. Tek Ram ….. Appellant. Vs. Anant Ram …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the judgement, decree dated 1.12.1998 passed by District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 115-S/13 of 97-98 affirming judgement and decree dated 29.4.1997 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class (2), Shimla in Civil Case No. 403/1 of 1995. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Ram Saran father of Tek Ram appellant regarding land comprised in khasra Nos. 335, 338 and 351 measuring 2 bighas 9 biswas, 14 biswas and 1 bigha 10 biswas, respectively, Mauza Jhakri Nichli, Pargana Nerwa, Tehsil and District Shimla. It was pleaded that Ram Saran had no right, title or interest Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… over the suit land, but he and his family members had threatened to cause interference on the suit land. 3. The suit was contested by Ram Saran. He submitted that he had no concern over the land comprised in khasra Nos. 335, 338 but he claimed possession on khasra No. 351 since the time of his predecessor Mastia. It was pleaded that Mastia was in adverse possession of khasra No. 351 to the knowledge of Chetia, who was absolute owner of the land in question. The revenue entries showing respondent in possession on khasra No. 351, are wrong. 4. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD. 6. Relief. The issue No. 1 was decided partly in favour of respondent, issues No. 2 to 5 were answered in negative and the suit was partly decreed. Respondent Ram Saran was restrained from causing interference on khasra No. 351 measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas by the trial court on 29.4.1997. The decree dated 29.4.1997 was assailed by way of an appeal, which was affirmed by District Judge on 1.12.1998. Ram Saran died on 28.12.1998, therefore, second appeal was filed by Tek …3… Ram son of Ram Saran. The present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- That both the courts below have misread and mis-appreciated the pleadings, and oral and documentary evidence to reject the defence of the defendant- appellant that he is in adverse possession of the land comprising khasra No. 351, as a result of which, suit of the plaintiff is decreed. 5. Heard and perused the record. Mr. G.D.Verma, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the courts below have misread and mis-appreciated the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record. The appellant has proved his adverse possession on the suit land. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgement, decree. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred the statement of respondent. He has submitted that statement of respondent indicates that even respondent has admitted the possession of appellant and his predecessor on khasra No. 351. The statement of respondent at the most reveals that there are fields on khasra No. 351, but he has nowhere stated that those fields are in possession of appellant through his predecessor. PW 1 Anant Ram has stated that there was litigation between him and Ram Saran earlier, which case was filed by Ram Saran for correction of entries in Tehsil. The said case was decided in favour of the witness. Ram Saran filed an appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed. DW 1 Ram Saran in his statement has stated that Anant Ram had filed a suit for injunction against him in Court No. 3, which was decided against the witness up to High Court. He has also stated that injunction decree was passed against him. He left the possession after the decree. …4… Thus Ram Saran admitted that he is not in possession of the suit land. This clearly demolishes the case of the appellant of adverse possession on khasra No. 351. In Addition to this, in jamabandi 1989-90 Ex. P 1 Anant Ram has been shown owner in possession of khasra No. 351. The appellant has not rebutted the presumption attached to jamabandi Ex. P-1. The land comprised in khasra No. 351 has not been shown in possession of appellant or his predecessor in the revenue record. There is nothing on record that the appellant or his predecessor made an attempt to get recorded their possession on land comprised in khasra No. 351. 7. The two courts below have appreciated the evidence properly and the view taken by them emerges from the evidence on record. In second appeal, the evidence cannot be re-appreciated. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out on what point the two courts below have mis-read or mis-appreciated the pleadings and the evidence. There is no perversity in the impugned judgement, decree. The appellant has failed to establish his adverse possession on land comprised in khasra No. 351. Resultantly, the substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. 8. No other point was urged. 9. As a result of above discussion, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. June 24, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.