##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.20 of 2024

Date of Decision : 30.12.2025

Kashmir Singh

…… Appellant

Versus

Sita Ram

……Respondent

Coram: t

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 u

For the Appellant : Mr. Narender Kumar Reddy, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Vikrant Thakur and Mr. Shubham Singh

Guleria, Advocates.

Bipin Chan der 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 01.11.2023, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi

Division, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.26 of 2023,

titled Kashmir Singh vs. Sita Ram, whereby the judgment and decree

dated 11.01.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar,

District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, have been 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.

1

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

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:07:27 :::CIS

2

3. The material facts necessary for the disposal of the present

second appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit before the

learned trial Court initially seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to

restrain the defendant-appellant from interfering in the suit land, which

was later amended to include the relief of ma ndatory injunction for

possession. The plaintiff pleaded that he is theo owner in possession of the

suit land, having sold a portion of it to others, and is now the owner of the

remaining land bearing khasra no. 1226/1153/128/2. The defendant, an

owner of adjacent land, was aulleged to have no right, title, or interest over

the suit land but was interfering with it and had dispossessed the plaintiff

from a part of the land bearing khasra no. 1592/128/2 during the suit's

pendency. The defendant opposed the suit by filing a written statement

raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action,

proper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, suppression of material

facts, and non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the

H defendant denied the plaint's contents, asserted that he constructed his

house on his own land in 2009, and claimed that a false report was

submitted by the Local Commissioner at the plaintiff's instance, with no

encroachment having been made.

4. The learned trial Court framed issues on 17.10.2013, with an

additional issue framed on 14.03.2018, which read as follows:-

1. Whether the defendant is liable to be restrained from

causing any interference over the suit land through a

decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for?

OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of

mandatory injunction to the effect that in case he is

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:07:27 :::CIS

3

dispossessed or any construction is raised, it is liable to

be restored, as prayed for? OPP .

2A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession,

as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as

alleged? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not valued for the purpose

of Court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action to

file the present suit, as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean

hands, as alleged? OPD t

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and

mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD

8. Relief.

5. The parties led their evidence, and the plaintiff relied upon a

demarcation report. The learned trial Court initially dismissed the suit,

observing that while the plaintiff was the owner, the demarcation report

was not acceptable. Upon appeal, the first appellate Court set aside this

dismissal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the local

commissioner’s r