The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the evidence and material on record to determine the existence of encroachment and unauthorized construction, as well as addressing procedural matters related to additional evidence and framing of additional issues.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.-These appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge affirming the decree of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class-(3), Shimla, dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant.

2. Two cases; Civil Suit No.157/1 of 89, titled: Shri Rajmal Rajput vs. Smt.Raj Kumari and Civil Suit No.135/1 of 90, titled: Smt.Raj Kumari vs. Shri Rajmal Rajput, were consolidated and tried together by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class-(3), Shimla. The appellant-plaintiff herein, prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant Smt.Raj Kumari, whereas in the other suit instituted by her she prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff herein. The case pleaded by the plaintiff was that he is the owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No.241/111, measuring 19 bighas, Khata No.33, Khatauni No.42, situated at Phagli, Shimla, and has constructed a residential house over it. He had covered 6/7 biswas of land under his construction and there was 12/13 biswas of land which was vacant. Adjoining to this land is the land/property of the defendant measuring 15 bighas on which there already existed residential house.

3. The plaintiff pleaded that he was in the Indian Army and was posted outside Shimla. Taking advantage of his absence, the defendant started raising construction by encroaching upon the land and obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla and the Town and Country Planning on the basis of some forged documents. The plaintiff requested the defendant to confine the construction to her land, but instead, she raised construction over an area of 4ft. x 6 ft. on the land of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, she also constructed a WC and Bathroom over land comprised in Khasra No.241/111 and placed a water tank over the land which obviously did not belong to her. The plaintiff prayed for a mandatory injunction calling upon the defendant to remove this construction from his land.

4. The suit was contested by the respondent who pleaded that construction was made on land comprised in Khasra No.255/112, measuring 13 bighas on which there already stood a double storeyed building. The allegations regarding forgery etc. were denied by the defendant. In the suit instituted by her, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff herein was illegally interfering in her land and possession and therefore a permanent prohibitory injunction be issued prohibiting and restraining him from trespassing on her land or causing any hindrance in the peaceful use and occupation thereof. In the suit instituted by the plaintiff, two crucial issues settled were whether the plaintiff-appellant herein were entitled to a permanent prohibitory injunction and the second whether mandatory injunction could be granted to him on the basis of the encroachments as alleged. In the suit instituted by the defendant, the first issue was as to whether the plaintiff (respondent herein) was entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.

5. On the conspectus of the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court held the two issues framed in the suit filed by him against him dismissing the suit and granted the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the respondent-defendant in the suit preferred by her.

6. Two appeals were instituted by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree and both these appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

7. In RSA No.327 of 1997, the appellant challenges the dismissal of the suit and in RSA No.61 of 1998, the plaintiff-defendant challenges the grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of her.

8. In arriving at the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff deserves dismissal, the learned trial Court took into consideration the evidence of PW-1, Rajmal Rajput, who reiterated the allegations made in the plaint allegi