IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 280 of 2016.

Decided on : 6 ^th November, 2025.

Ranjit Kumar ...Appellant.

Versus Kanta Devi & Anr. ....Respondents.

Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek and Ms. Sana Rana, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

g This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant/counter claimant against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharmashala (Camp at Baijnath) in Civil Appeal No. 18-P/X/III/2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, in Counter Claim No. 330/09/2013 has been set aside.

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

2. Respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) had filed Civil Suit No. 309/08/13 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur for declaration to the effect that they had perfected the tiHtle over the land comprised in Khata No. 226, Khatauni No. 383, Khasra No. 393/1, measuring 0-00-50 hectares, situated at Mohal Kachhal Jaggain, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra H.P. (for short “suit land”), by way of adverse ptossession. The contrary entries in the revenue records were also challenged. As a consequence, relief of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) from interfering in the suit land hahd also been sought.

3. The defendant in addition to contesting the claim of plaintiffs, had filed counter claim and had sought a decree of possession against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land on the basis of title.

4.. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was registered as Civil Suit No. 309/08/13 and the counter claim filed by the defendant was registered as Counter Claim No. 330/09/2013.

5. Learned trial Court had framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs have become owners and in possession of the suit land by principles of adverse possession, as alleged?OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present fHorm?OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD.

5. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis-

joinder of nrecessary parties?OPD

6. Whethuer the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD.

7. Whether the defendants are entitled for decree of possession of the suit land as claimed in the counter claim?OP Counter Claimant.

h8. Relief.

6. Issues No. 2, 3, 4 and 7 were answered in the affirmative, whereas, all other issues were answered in Hnegative. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed and the counter claim of defendant was decreed. Plaintiff were directed to handover the possession of the suit land to the defendant/counter claimant.

7. Plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Counter Claim No. 330/09/2013 by preferring the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said appeal has been allowed by the learned First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree and the counter claim of the defendant has been dismissed.

8. The instant appeal was admitteHd on 28.09.2016 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the learned Courts below have misread and misappreciated the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence on record, both oral and documentary especially the statements of PW-1, PW- 2, DW-1, DW-2, EX.P-1, Ex.DW1/A, Ex. D-1, Ex.DW1/A to EX.DW1/C and on account of such moisreading and misappreciation, whether the findings of both the learned Courts below are sustainable in law?

2. Whether the demarcation given in