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.

JUDGMENT :

ROMESH VERMA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. dated 07.04.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala, Disrict Kangra, H.P. dated 29.09.2023, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was ordered to be decreed, has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent- plaintiff Kalashan Devi wife of Sh. Pritam Chand filed the suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction on the averments that she is owner of the land bearing khata No. 81, Khatauni No. 112, Khasra No.252/1/2, area measuring 0-19-23 hectares and Khasra No.252/1/3 area measuring 0-00-08 hectares, total area measuring 0-19-31 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 situated at Mohal Lanjot, Mauza Basnoor, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that the defendants have got no concern with the suit land, but they are the owners of the adjoining land. The defendants encroached the land of the plaintiff in the year 2010. When plaintiff requested them and their predecessor to stop their legal acts, consequent to that, they filed a suit seeking relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff moved an application for demarcation to the revenue authorities on 2.1.2013 and the authorities appointed Sh. Rajinder Kumar retired Tehsildar, as Local Commissioner vide order dated 2.1.2013 passed in case 1/13, titled as Kalashan Devi vs. Naresh Chand and others. In pursuant to the directions of revenue authorities, the Local Commissioner demarcated the land and submitted his report to the Assistant Collector, who accepted and affirmed the report vide its order dated 15.02.2013.

3. It was averred in the plaint that in the demarcation, the defendants were found to have encroached the suit land bearing Khasra No. 252/1/3/1, area measuring 0-00-24 hectares and Khasra No. 252/1/2/1, area measuring 0-00-38 hectares owned by the plaintiff. It was submitted that at the time of demarcation, the statements of the parties were recorded by the Revenue Officer, however, the defendants intentionally and willfully in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff refused to record their statements before the Revenue Officer. In order to wriggle out of the said demarcation,the defendants made various complaints at different Forums in order to harass and to create prejudice against the plaintiff. Therefore, under such circumstances, the suit was filed for possession on the basis of the demarcation report which has been carried out by the Revenue Officer i.e Sh. Rajinder Kumar, retired Tehsildar.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds. The defendants raised the plea of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel etc. On merits, it was stated that the land bearing Khata No. 84, Khatauni No. 115, Khasra No. 253/1, area measuring 0-37-51 hectares is coming in possession of the defendants since 1970 when the land was allotted to their predecessor. The allegations as levelled in the plaint were denied and it was stated that they have no concern with the land of the plaintiff. It was averred that the plaintiff along with her husband are interf