IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 160 of 2016.

Reserved on: 8 ^th September, 2025. Decided on: 22 ^nd September, 2025.

Kanta Devi .... Appellant.

Versus Bhupender Pal & Ors. ....Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Kuthiala, C Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 2 & 4 to 8.

Mr. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 25/15/2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2014 passed

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

by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 has been affirmed.

2. The appellant/plaintiff had Hfiled a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of the land comprised in Khata No. 175 min, Khatauni No. 209, Khasra Nos. 331 and 332, measuring 0-5-19 bightas situated in mauza Sianj, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. (for short “the suit land”).

3. The parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007.

4.hPlaintiff claimed herself to be the owner in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that the defendants without right, title and interest were interfering in the ownership and possession of plaintiff. A decree of mandatory injunction was also sought by alleging that in case the defendants succeeded in raising any construction/super structure over the suit land, the same be directed to be demolished.

5. The case as set up by the plaintiff was that the suit land was recorded in possession of Ganeshu, Devu and Narbada alias Nupi, all of whom were widows of Jalpu. Their possession was stated to be as non-occupancy tenants. It was averred that since Ganeshu and Devu had pre-deceased Narbada alias Nupi, the said Narbada alias Nupi had remained in exclusive possession of the suit landH as non-occupancy tenant. As per the plaintiff, by operation of law and as per Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, Narbada alias Nupi had become owner in possession of the suit land. However, it wats admitted that the ownership of Narbada alias Nupi had not been recorded in the records of rights for want of attestation of the mutation.

6. Plaintiff also claimed to have inherited the suit land from Narbada @ Nupi by virtue of Will dated 17.11.997 exhecuted by Narbada @ Nupi in favour of the plaintiff.

7. The defendants were stated to be having no right, title or interest in the suit land. With the allegation that since 18.05.2007 interference was being caused in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff by the defendants, the suit was filed.

8. Defendants No.2, 6 and 8 filed their joint written statement. The revenue entries in the name of Ganeshu, Devu and Narbada alias Nupi in respect of the suit land were alleged to be wrong, illegal and void. Their status was alleged to be that of trespasser. It was submitted that the suit land was owned and possessed by “Deity Sailwani” (hereinafter referred to as “Deity”). Jalpu was stated to be “Katwal” and thus, a member of Managing Committee of the Deity. As per defendants No. 2, 6 and 8, Jalpu had illegaHlly got the entry of non-occupancy tenant incorporated in his favour in connivance with the revenue staff. The plaintiff was also alleged to be a trespasser over the suit land.

9. Defendant No.3t filed separate written statement and claimed to have inherited the estate of Jalpu being his nephew.

10. Defendants No.1,4, 5 and 7 also