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; appellate courts cannot shift onus or rely on unpleaded documents.

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, Tehsil Sardar, District Mandi, H.P. It was averred in the plaint that adjoining to the land comprised in Khasra No.230, the adjoining land is owned and possessed by the defendants, which is comprised in Khasra No. 229. Land of the plaintiff is at a higher level and that of the defendants is on the lower side and there is a gap of about 3 feet height between lands of both the land owners. It was averred that on the land of the plaintiff there are various kind of treeson beed, such as Tunhiand Poplar etc. on the spot. The defendants made an application to the revenue authorities for demarcation of their land and in the said demarcation, boundary of of the defendants was shown above the beed i.e. in the field of the plaintiff, which demarcation was not accepted by the plaintiff as the same was not done in accordance with law by the revenue officials and was result of connivance of the defendants with the revenue staff. It was further averred that the defendants under the garb of the demarcation were threatening to cut and remove the trees standing on the land of the plaintiff and intended to dig puccabeed on the boundary which is existing on the spot since century, which act on the part of the defendants is highly illegal and unlawful. Therefore, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained to cut and remove the trees from the suit land bearing Khasra No. 230 as well as to dig the suit land and further to cause any interference by passing a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

3. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent was contested by the defendants/appellants by raising various preliminary objections including maintainability and locus standi. On merits, it was stated that the plaintiff/respondent recently built his house not only on the land owned and possessed by him but also the part of the construction was raised on the land owned and possessed by the defendants. It was averred that on account of the encroac