Admissions in a family settlement constitute substantive evidence establishing a party's claim over property, notwithstanding the absence of formal partition.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, District Chamba, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 16/2024 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Dalhousie, H.P. in Civil Suit Reg No. 83 of 2016.

2. The plaintiff’s case in the trial court, in brief, was that he, along with the defendant and other co-sharers, was recorded as a joint owner in possession of land comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 66/86min, Khasra Nos. 354, 726, 727, 731, and 732, measuring 03-02-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Jasoor, Hadbast No. 277, Up- Tehsil Sihunta, District Chamba, H.P. Though the land was jointly owned by the parties and other co-sharers, no formal partition had taken place, and they were in possession as per their respective shares in accordance with a family settlement, having also raised constructions thereon. The plaintiff had constructed his house over a portion of Khasra No. 732 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land"), which was allotted to him in the family settlement, and he was in exclusive possession of the said land.

3. It was averred that the plaintiff was using another portion of Khasra No. 732 as a passage to access his house, and consequently, the defendant had no right, title, or interest over the same. The defendant’s single- story house was situated on the lower side of the passage. It was also contended that the defendant had begun constructing a second story on his house and, in the process, started erecting a pillar on the plaintiff’s passage, disregarding the family settlement, which would considerably reduce the passage’s width and make it difficult for the plaintiff to pass through or carry heavy household articles. The defendant had also gathered construction materials like sand, cement, gravel, and iron bars and engaged labourers to complete the unauthorized construction, including laying a lintel. The cause of action arose in the second week of June, 2016 when the defendant began erecting the pillar on the plaintiff’s passage and again on 23.06.2016 when the defendant refused to acknowledge the plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a decree of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction over Khasra No. 732 and a Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to dismantle any construction raised during the suit’s pendency.

4. Upon notice, the defendant filed a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiff not approaching the court with clean hands. On merits, the revenue record was not disputed, and it was admitted that the parties were in possession of their respective portions, but the existence of any family settlement was denied. While the plaintiff’s house was acknowledged, its location on Khasra No. 732 was disputed, and it was denied that any passage existed. The defendant asserted that no new construction was being raised; rather, the work was being carried out on the existing house. The suit was alleged to be retaliatory, as the defendant’s wife had lodged a complaint against the plaintiff at PP Sihunta, resulting in him being ordered to furnish bonds of Rs. 2000/-. Another complaint filed by the defendant’s wife on 31.08.2013 was decided on 08.01.2015 by the SDM Bhatiyat, and the present suit was claimed to be a consequence of these proceedings. The defendant denied any cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and prayed for the suit’s dismissal.

5. Based on the