##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.247 of 2025

Date of Decision : 23.12.2025

Durga Singh (deceased) through LRs.

…… Appellants

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

……Respondents

Coram: t

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 u

For the Appellants : Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General for

respondent No.1/State.

None for remaining respondents.

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 03.07.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge,

Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal

No.25/2024, titled Durga Singh (deceased) through LRs. vs. State of HP

and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024, passed

by learned Civil Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in

Civil Suit No.39407/2013, have been affirmed

1

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

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:49:54 :::CIS

2

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 brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this second

appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff is a permane nt resident and estate

right holder of village Nalag. The land compriosed in Khewat Khatauni No.

107min/145, Khasra No. 682, measuring 03-10-11 bighas situated in

muhal Nalag, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi is owned by the State of

Himachal Pradesh and is reucorded in possession of "TAVE HAKUK

BARTAN DARAN MUTABIK NAKSHA BARTAN". A water source exists

on this land. The land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.49min/80,

Khasra No.685, measuring 1-4-3 bighas is owned and possessed by

respondent No.2-defendant No.2. It is the case of the appellant that

respondent No.2, in connivance with subordinate revenue agencies,

procured an order dated 21.11.1990 from the learned ADM (Collector),

H Mandi, conferring upon him a right to irrigate his land from the said water

source, behind the back of the appellant and other estate right holders.

4. The revenue entry was made based on this order. In Civil

Suit No.69 of 1999, decided on 02.06.2003, the Civil Court, while deciding

issue No.3, held the said order dated 21.11.1990 to be wrong, illegal and

void ab-initio. Relying on this finding, the appellant pursued the matter

before the revenue authorities upto the Financial Commissioner and also

filed CWP No.54 of 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court, seeking deletion

of the entry, but his prayer was dismissed on the technical ground that a

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:49:54 :::CIS

3

mere finding on an issue could not bar the revenue authorities from giving

effect to the order of the learned ADM. Left with no alternative, the

appellant filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the revenue

entry in favour of respondent No.2, based on the order dated 21.11.1990,

is null and void, and for a consequential decree of permanent prohibitory

injunction. o

5. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant No.1-State

raised objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and limitation.

Defendant No.2 raised prelimuinary objections qua res judicata, limitation

and contended that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC,

further stating that the finding on issue No.3 in the earlier suit was not

binding as the suit itself was dismissed and no appeal was preferred

against that judgment.

6. The learned trial court framed the following issues on

30.06.2022:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaring

the revenue entries sowing the defendant No.2 having a

right to irrigate his landed property null and void, as

prayed?...OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent

prohibitory injunction as a consequential relief, as prayed?