Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
KAMAL DEV - Appellant
Versus
HANS RAJ - Respondent
RSA No. 118 of 1996
Decided On : 10/05/1999
LAND DISPUTE - BOUNDARY DEMARCATION - COMPLIANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER - VALIDITY OF DEMARCATION - INTERPRETATION OF INSTRUCTIONS - EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or taking forcible possession of the suit land and for possession through removal of construction. The defendants claimed to have purchased land adjacent to the suit land and alleged that the plaintiff's claim was based on forged documents. The trial court and the first appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for possession.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the demarcation of boundaries carried out by the Local Commissioner was valid and not vitiated by the alleged non-compliance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. The Court interpreted the instructions and held that non-compliance with certain instructions, such as recording statements of parties or fixing three Pucca points, would not vitiate the demarcation as a whole. The Court also held that the lower appellate court had rightly dismissed the defendants' application for leading additional evidence as the documents sought to be produced were available at the time of trial and the defendants had not shown any diligence in procuring them.
Issues: 1. Whether the demarcation of boundaries carried out by the Local Commissioner was valid and not vitiated by the alleged non-compliance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner? 2. Whether the lower appellate court had rightly dismissed the defendants' application for leading additional evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner regarding demarcation of boundaries are statutory in nature and must be complied with. However, non-compliance with certain instructions, such as recording statements of parties or fixing three Pucca points, will not vitiate the demarcation as a whole. 2. The Court has the discretion to allow or disallow additional evidence. The lower appellate court exercised its discretion in favor of dismissal on the grounds that the documents sought to be produced were available at the time of trial and the defendants had not shown any diligence in procuring them.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra while holding camp at Una whereby the first appeal preferred by the defendants before him has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1989 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class(1), Una was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal may be stated as follows:
3. The respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or taking forcible possession and digging out foundations or raising any sort of construction on the land marked ABCD specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the plaint forming a part of the land comprising Khewat No. 360, Khatauni No. 672 min, Khasra No. 4343/3820 measuring 1 Kanal 11 marlas situate in village Una, Tehsil and District Una (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and in the alternative for possession through removal of the construction. Case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that the suit land is owned and possessed by him. The defendants claim to have purchased Khasra No. 4344/3820 measuring 14 marlas and are conspiring and threatening to encroach upon the suit land marked as ABCD in the site plan forming part of Khasra No. 4343/3820 and are also threatening to dig out the foundations and raise construction forcibly, illegally, unauthorisedly and without the consent of the plaintiff and are collecting building material, though they have no right and interest in the suit land. The defendants were asked to refrain from their unlawful acts but they have refused to accede to the requests of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.
4. The defendants filed written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff. Their case is that they have purchased land comprising Khasra No. 4344/3280 and are in possession thereof. After purchasing the said land they got it demarcated in the presence of the plaintiff who admitted the demarcation correct and boundary stones were put up on the spot. It has been denied that site ABCD as shown in the site plan is a part of Khasra No. 4343/3820 and that it has been done so wrongly by forging the karukans of the field of the plaintiff and the matter is under inquiry with the settlement authorities. It has further been claimed that the foundations have been dug at the spot and that the defendants have a right to do so. It has further been claimed that the defendants never encroached upon the land of the plaintiff nor they have any intention to do so. Hence the entire claim has been denied.
5. The plaintiff filed replication wherein the grounds of defence as taken is the written statement have been denied and the claim as made out in the plaint has been re-affirmed,
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the leaned trial Judge framed the following issues:
1. Whether area marked ABCD as shown in the site plan is part of Khasra No. 4343/3820 as alleged? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. Vide judgment dated 30.12.1989, the learned trial Judge decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for the alternative relief of possession of the suit land through removal of construction raised thereon with costs.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Una which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra, while holding camp at Una. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the present appeal.
10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
11. T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
