IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.162 of 2002-B a/w RSA No. 557 of 2001 Date of Decision: 29.04.2015

1. RSA No. 162 of 2002 Bhai Ashok Singh ..Appellant.

Versus Smt. Lalita & others ..Respondents.

2. RSA No. 557 of 2001 Rani Padamjit Singh & others ..Appellants.

Versus Shri Ashok Singh (cid:133)Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1Yes.

For the Appellant(s): Mr. R.L. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, for the appellant in RSA No.162 of 2002 and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj K.

Vashista, Advocate, for the appellant in RSA No. 557 of

2001.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashista, Advocate, for the respondents in RSA No. 162 of 2002 and Mr. R.L. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, for the respondent in RSA No. 557 of

2001.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Sanjay Karol, J (oral)

In these appeals, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant(s) (in both the appeals) have assailed the findings of fact, some of which are concurrent, so returned by the Courts below. 2. Plaintiff Ashok Singh filed a suit, seeking declaration to the effect that as owner he is in exclusive possession of the suit property, comprising of road, garage etc. built upon Khata Khatauni Nos. 13/14 min., Khasra Nos. 12 and 13, situate in Chhota Shimla. The defendants arrayed were Rani Padamjit Singh (defendant No.1), Smt. Lalita (defendant No.2), Smt. Anita (defendant No.3) and Smt. Rama (defendant No.4), all legal heirs of late Raja Padamjit Singh, original owner of the property commonly known as Strawberry Hills. Plaintiff pleaded occupation, over the suit property, for over a period of 50 years. Hence having perfected title by way of adverse possession.

3. Written statement, though filed on behalf of all the defendants but verified and signed only by Smt.

Lalita Khanna, disputed the factual position, so averred by the plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff reiterated its stand in the replication.

5. With the completion of pleadings in the suit filed on 24.06.1989, trial Court framed the following issues for consideration.

(cid:147)1. Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of suit land as alleged? If so its effect? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration and injunction as alleged?

OPP.

3. Whether the suit in present form is not competent? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit as alleged? OPD.

6. Relief(cid:148).

6. In order to prove its case and discharge the burden of onus, plaintiff examined himself as PW.5 and five other witnesses. Sh. Naresh Sood (PW.1), was examined to prove the factum of construction of garage and its assessment for the purpose of Municipal (House) Taxes and payment thereof.

Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW.2), was examined to prove the Plan, so sanctioned by the Municipal Authorities for carrying out the alterations and additions in the garage as also the house, already in existence. Sh. Lekh Ram (PW.3), was examined to prove the record of the Municipal Corporation. Sh. Purshotam Sharma (PW.4), was examined to prove the affidavit, so filed by Rani Padamjit Singh (defendant No.1) in the proceedings before this Court. Sh. Prithpal Singh (PW.6) and Sh. Rupinder Singh (PW.7), were examined to also prove the existence of the garage and uninterrupted and peaceful possession and usage of the entire suit property.

7. On the other hand, no evidence other than the deposition of Smt. Lalita (defendant No.2) was led by the defendants.

8. Appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses and the other evidence on record trial Court, holding that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, was in an uninterrupted and continuous use and occupation of the suit property including the garage, by answering the issues in favour of the plaintiff, decr