IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 152 of 2015 Date of decision: 20.11.2025 Amar Dei ...Appellant/Plaintiff.

Versus Pratapa & Anr. ...Rfespondents/Defendants.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Va idya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant/plauintiff : Mr. Arvind Sharma & Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocates.

For the respondents/defendants : Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral):

hThe instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by gthe appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated

17.01.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2011, RBT No. 01/13, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 171/1999, has been affirmed.

2. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed by both the Courts concurrently.

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

3. The appellant/plaintiff claimed herself to be a co-

owner of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1002P and 1003, situated in Tika/Mahal Ghaloon, Tappa Jalari, Te.hsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. (for short “the suit land”). She alleged that the respondents/defendants had cut a “Jammun tree” from the suit land without her oconsent. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the respond ents/defendants had their land adjoining the suit land, brut the suit land was situated at a higher elevation, about 6 feet above the land of the respondents/defendants. On these averments, a prayer was made for a decCree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the suit land. She also claimed damages to the tune of ₹8,000/- as the cost of the tree and further sought a direction for demarcation of the suit land.

4. Only defendant No. 2 contested the suit. In his written statement, the claim of the appellant/plaintiff was denied. It was alleged that the land of the respondents/defendants was comprised in Khasra No. 93 and that they had never encroached upon or interfered with the suit land in any manner. Reference was made to previous litigation between the parties in Civil Suit No. 172/1986, in which the issue raised by the appellant/plaintiff had already been decided. It was specifically averred that in the previous suit, a Local Commissioner had been appointePd, who had demarcated the land, and on the basis of his repor.t, the learned Court had found no encroachment by the respondents/defendants on the suit land.

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

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit land as depicted uin the body of the plaint?OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation as damages amounting to ₹8,000/- for cutting a big Jammun tree from the suit land as claimed?OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for demarcation of the suit land by fixing boundary of the same as claimed?OPP.

h4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata?

OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filling the present suit by her act and conduct?OPD.

H 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD.

7. Whether he suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD.

8. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under Section 35-A C.P.C?OPD.

9. Relief.”

6. All the issues were decided in negative and consequently, the suit was dismissed.

7. The appellant/plaintiff assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by taking Precourse to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for s.hort, “CPC”). However, she remained unsuccessful, and the appeal filed by her has been dismissed by the judgment and decree impugned herein. 8. The instant appeal was admitted on 29.07.2015 on the following substantial questiotn of law:-

“Wheth