IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 71 of 2023 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025.

Urmila Devi and others f .....Appellants Versus Ved Parkash and others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) .

The present appellants have filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 28-XIII-2022, titled Urmila Devi and others vs. Ved Parkash and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una,

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

H.P. in Civil Suit No. 20/2010, titled Ved Parkash and others vs. Shankri Devi through LRs and others, has been upheld and affirmed. .

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.

3. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondents, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a civil suit against the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the defendant s, before the learned trial court seeking possession of the land denoted by letters ‘ABCDE’ in the site plan measuring 0-4-03 comprised in Khewat no. 402, HKhatauni no. 417, Khasra nos. 870 and 871 as per the Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 situated in village Kuthar Khurad, Tehsil and District Una, (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), by demolishing the superstructure raised and constructed thereon.

4. The case of the plaintiffs was that they along with other co-sharers are the owners of the suit land, and that the defendants and their predecessor-in-interest had, without consent and behind their back, raised construction on the suit land and had, in connivance with the settlement department, got entries of their possession as Kabij incorporated in the revenue record, which entries were illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The p.laintiffs pleaded that upon discovering this in December 2009, they requested the defendants to desist and vacate the suit land, but the defendants refused.

5. The defendants contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding improper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, estoppel by conduct, non-joinder of necessary parties, and limitation. On merits, while not denying the plaintiffs' ownership, the defendants denied any illeg al construction. They pleaded that their predecessors had constructed a Kachha abadi on the suit land over 52 years ago, and that during consolidation Hproceedings in 1987-88, it was found the land was under their abadi.

6. They further averred that a compromise was reached whereby, in lieu of the suit land, equal area from Khasra no. 2038 was given to the plaintiffs by way of exchange, and the plaintiffs took possession thereof. They also stated that they later raised Pucca and Kacha constructions on the suit land with the knowledge and without objection of the plaintiffs, who were thus estopped from filing the suit.

7. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues on 6.8.2010:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are ent.itled to the possession of the site denoted by letters 'ABCDE' in the site plan, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is its correct valuation ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are barred by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

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

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

6. Relief.

8. After evidence, the learned trial court