IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 59 of 2000 Judgment reserved on 1.3.2011. Date of decision: 8.3.2011. Smt. Dugli …Appellant. Versus Smt. Diki Yangzum …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 91/98 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant(hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Manali at Kullu decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land measuring 0.0.8 bighas 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the : 2 : defendant from raising any construction over the suit land on the ground that the plaintiff is owner of the suit land. It was alleged that the defendant is trying to raise construction over the open land next to the house of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant raised various pleas and alleged that the plaintiff was trying to encroach upon the land of the defendant. Various issues were framed by the learned Trial Court and additional issues were also framed and finally the suit was decreed. Appeal filed was dismissed. 4. The only question which arises is, whether the defendant had encroached upon the land of the plaintiff or not. The plaintiff alleged that she had purchased khasra No. 616 measuring 0.2.0 bighas and raised construction of a hotel over it and had left some portion of the land vacant which had been encroached upon by the defendant. This land has been identified as khasra No. 616/1. The defendant alleged that the revenue entries are wrong and a result of fraud and misrepresentation. 5. The plaintiff examined herself and three witnesses including PW/4 Karam Chand Retd. Naib Tehsildar who was appointed local commissioner by the Court and gave demarcation and according to this demarcation it was found that the defendant had encroached upon 0.0.8 biswansies of land. On the other hand the defendant and her sole other witness DW-2 stated that the defendant had raised construction on her own land. Both the Courts on appraisal of the documentary and oral evidence : 3 : have come to the conclusion that the defendant has encroached upon 8 biswansies of land belonging to the plaintiff. This appeal was no doubt admitted on a number of questions of law, but I after hearing the parties find that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the appeal. The findings of the Courts below are pure findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The appeal is, therefore, without any merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge 8th March, 2011. (Krn Guleria)