IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.259/2023

Date of Decision: 02nd December, 2025.

Pritam Singh .....Appellant

Versus .

Amar Singh (deceased) through LRs. …..Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

W hether approved for reporting?1

For the Appellant: Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Ja swal, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, HP in Civil Ap peal No.73 of 2018, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, HP, in Civil Suit No.59

of 2011.

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. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Pritam Singh had filed a civil suit seeking a decree of declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction regarding the land comprising Khata No.54 min, Khatauni No.67 min, Khasra No.1287/324 measuring 0-00-07 hectares and Khasra No.1286/323

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

measuring 0-01-03 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year

2007-08, situated in Tika Kihrwin, Tappa Dhaned, TehsPil and District Hamirpur, H.P. (suit land), asserting his ownership and possession. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought to restrain the defendant from encroaching upon the suit land by raising construction. The plaintiff averred that the suit land was in his exclusive ownership and possession, while the defendant was the towner of adjoining land. The plaintiff claimed a customary right to use the ridges of the defendant's fields for ingress and egress for cultivation, carrying bullocks, and taking grass since time immemorial. The cause of action allegedly accrued in the second week of June, 2011, when the defendant started digging the suit land, destroyed boundary marks, and encroached upon it. The plaintiff sought grelief of injunction, possession through demolition, and a declaration of his customary right of passage.

3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement raising preliminary objections on maintainability, estoppel, locus standi, and cause of action. On merits, it was averred that the suit land was still joint as a Revision Petition against the partition order was pending before the Financial Commissioner, Shimla. It was further stated that the suit land was adjacent to a public road, negating the need for passage through the defendant's land. While admitting that ridges could generally be used for agricultural access, the defendant denied any encroachment on the plaintiff's land and alleged that the plaintiff had been held in civil imprisonment in prior proceePdings and had no respect for law, praying for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 08.05.2012:-

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession over the land comprised in Khata No.54 min detailed in the headnote of the plaint ?OPP.

2. Whether plaintif f is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for ?OPP.

3. Whether plaintiff is having customary right of passage through land of defendant comprised in Khata No.53 min detailed in the head note of the plaint ?OPP.

4. Whether defendant is causing obstructions to the right of passage of the plaintiff over the land comprised in Khata No.53 min, detailed in the head-

note of the plaint, as alleged ?OPP.

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendant not to cause interference with the right of passage of the plaintiff as alleg