2025:HHC:36136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 161 of 2024 Date of Decision: 30.10.2025.

Parshotam Lal .....Appellant Versus f Chiri Lal (deceased) through LRs.

…..Respondents Coram u The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant : Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) .

The present appellant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 48-D/XIII/2019, titled Parshotam Lal vs. Chiri Devi, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2019, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra at

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2012, titled Chiri Devi vs. Parshotam Lal has been upheld.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the suit land, comprised in Khata No. 321 min, Khatauni No. 415, Khuasra No. 458, situated in Mauza Sidhbari, Tehsil Doharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The plaintiff aveCrred that being a co-sharer in the Shamlat- Deh land, the suit land was recorded in her name and she was in possession until the defendant forcibly occupied it in the second week of November 2011. It Hwas further stated that the defendant, who owned the adjoining land (Khasra No. 457), constructed a septic tank, latrine, and bathroom on the suit land without the plaintiff's consent. Upon discovery, the plaintiff's requests for removal were ignored, leading her to apply for demarcation. The demarcation report dated 09.12.2011, conducted by a retired Tehsildar, confirmed the defendant's constructions on the suit land, prompting the lawsuit.

3. The defendant contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, limitation, and estoppel, and alternatively claimed ownership through adverse possession. On merits, the defendant admitted the suit land was recorded in the plaintiff's name but asserted that in April 1992, an oral agreement to sell was entered into for 1 Kaunal and 6 Marlas of land, which included the suoit land and Khasra No. 457. The defendant Cclaimed that he paid an initial Rs. 2,000/- and later the entire sale consideration, and possession was delivered to him.

4. The plaintiff allegedly delayed executing Hthe sale deed and, in 2001, refused to do so but executed a gift deed for Khasra No. 457, promising to transfer the suit land later. The defendant contended that he constructed his house after procuring a bank loan in 2002 and that the bathroom and toilet were built about ten years prior. He pleaded that his possession since 1992 constituted adverse possession and that the plaintiff, along with her family members, had worked as labourers during the construction, estopping her from filing the suit. The defendant also denied knowledge of the demarcation process.

5. The plaintiff filed a replication, denying the defendant's assertions and reasserting the plaint's averments. On the pleadings of the parties, the ld. Trial Court framed the following issues: -

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD.

3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.

4. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi?OPD.

5. Whether suit is time barred? OPD.

6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD

7. Whether defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession as alleged?

OPD.

8. Relief.

6. After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court decided all issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the s