IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.526 of 2002 Reserved on : 30 ^th September, 2024 Decided on : 27 ^th December, 2024 Thakur Radha Krishan …..Appellant Versus Karam Singh (deceased)

through LRs & Others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the appellant : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate for respondents No.1(a)(i) to 1(a)(iv)

and 2(b).

Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5.

Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.6.

Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.7.

Virender Singh, Judge .

Idol Thakur Radha Krishan, installed in

Thakurdwara, situated in Village Jangambagh, Muhal Chambi, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., through 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Shri Dalip Kumar, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal Nos.79 of 1999, 80 of 1999, 81 of 1999 and 99 of 1999

2. The appeals, referred to above, have been preferred by the respondents, against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1999, passed by the learned Sub Judge 1^st Class, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Civil Suit Nos.174/92, 208/97(92), titled as Thakur Radha Krishan versus Med Ram and Others.

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2002, learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeals, preferred by the respondents, against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1999, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, whereas, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.

5. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as per record, may be summed up, as under:-

5.1. Idol Thakur Radha Krishan, through next friend Shri Dalip Kumar had filed the suit for declaration, seeking the following relief:-

“ It is therefore, respectfully prayed that declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property i.e. the temple and Dharamshala standing on Khewat Khatauni No.199/306, Min, Khasra No.33, described in the Jamabandi 1991 of Mauja Chambi, Tehsil Sundenegar and the entries in column No.4 of the Jamabandi in respect of the ownership of the property in favour of defendants No.6 are illegal, null and void and is also owner-in- possession of the suit land described as Khewat No.105, Khatauni No.159, Khasra No.9,7,31 34, Kita 4, measuring 8-3-4 bighas described in the Jamabandi 1990-91 of Raja Chambi/20, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi (HP) and the entries of ownership and possession in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 are wrong illegal and void abinitio and the alienation out of the suit land made by the defendant llol in favour of defendants No.3,4 and s vide Registered Sale Deed No.435, and 406, dated 8- 7-1992 and Sale Deed No.479, dated: 11-8-1992 in favour of defendants 10.3, 4, and 5 respectively are also wrong illegal and void and for permanent perpetual injunction restraining the defendants Ho.1 to 5 from interferring in the ownership and possession of the Plaintiffs in the suit land described as Khasra No.3,7,31,34 in any manner whatsoever and from alienating and changing its nature in any manner by raising any structure or cutting and uprooting the trees standing on the suit land or closing the gate, or road approaching to the Thakurdwara and in the alternative for possession of the suit land a consequential relief be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and again