Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Hari Singh – Appellant
Versus
Rup Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROMESH VERMA, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 05.10.2018, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II Mandi in Appeal No. 34/18, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree, dated 29.06.2018 as passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.) Court No.3, Mandi, was set aside and ultimately, the suit as filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by passing a decree of injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from making any type of interference over the land comprised in Khasra No.2 and 230 in any manner and to cut and remove the trees from the edge of the beed of the land of the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present respondent/plaintiff, Rup Singh, preferred a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.3, Mandi, on 14.11.2013. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is owner in possession along with his brother, sisters and mother with respect to the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 168/198, Khasra No.2, 230, Kita-2 measuring 2-15-16 bighas, situated in Mohal Chatrour/293, T
In boundary injunction suits, plaintiff bears burden to prove ownership/possession of disputed embankment/trees via cogent evidence like demarcation; revenue records presumed true unless rebutted; ap....
In second appeals under Section 100 CPC, High Court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact on demarcation report validity absent perversity or substantial question of law.
The court emphasized the importance of following instructions for demarcation and the power of the court to appoint a fresh Local Commissioner. The court also highlighted the need for evidence to be ....
Non-compliance with certain instructions regarding demarcation of boundaries, such as recording statements of parties or fixing three Pucca points, will not vitiate the demarcation as a whole.
The court discussed the legal principles related to the jurisdiction of the court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact and law.
Appellate Court may permit additional evidence to be produced whether oral or documentary, if conditions mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 are satisfied.
The right to property is inviolable and sacred, and no one may be deprived of it without public necessity and just indemnity, as per the Land Revenue Act and the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.
The court clarified that allowing additional evidence for demarcation in boundary disputes is essential and does not constitute filling up a lacuna, reinforcing the importance of accurate boundary de....
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
