The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper demarcation procedures and the role of revenue officers in affirming demarcation reports under the H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954.

P.S. Rana, J.

Present regular second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2003 title Mahesh Prashad vs. Shiv Ram and others whereby learned District Judge Mandi accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court.

Brief facts of the case

2. Shri Mahesh Prashad plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction pleaded therein that plaintiff is owner in possession of house and land comprised in Khata No. 75, Khatauni No. 124 Khasra Nos. 920, 926 and 928 measuring 206.21 Sq. metres situated in Mohal Purani Mandi Tehsil Sadar District Mandi as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94. It is pleaded that defendants have purchased the suit land adjoining to the suit property and raised construction about 3/4 years back. It is pleaded that defendants raised shuttering over the house of plaintiff and plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the shuttering but defendants threatened the plaintiff. It is pleaded that defendants forcibly constructed slab over land of plaintiff in illegal manner. It is pleaded that plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the encroachment over land of plaintiff but defendants did not accept the request of plaintiff. Prayer for decree of suit sought as mentioned in relief clause of plaint.

3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that present suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. It is pleaded that plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act conduct and acquiesance. It is pleaded that suit is not properly valued for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. It is pleaded that plaintiff has encroached upon the land of defendants measuring 8.69 sq. metres and defendants have filed the separate suit. It is pleaded that application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC also filed against the plaintiff. It is denied that defendants have raised projection over the house of plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and suit is not valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought.

4. Plaintiff also filed replication and re-asserted allegations mentioned in plaint. As per the pleadings of parties learned Trial Court framed following issues on 15.10.2000:-

1. Whether defendants have created obstructions by construction of projection over the house of plaintiff as alleged if so its effect? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from raising further structure over the house of the plaintiff? OPP

3. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in present form? ……OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? …..OPD

5. Whether suit is counter blast to the suit filed by defendants? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? …OPD

7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the Court fee and jurisdiction? ….ODP

8. Relief

5. Learned Trial Court decided issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in negative and decided issues No. 4 partly in affirmative. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff.

6. Feeling aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court Mahesh Parshad filed appeal before learned District Judge Mandi and learned District Judge Mandi accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. Learned District Judge Mandi passed decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants and directed the defendants to remove about 6 inches of their slab towards the house of plaintiff as shown in field map Ext.PW4/A.

7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned D