IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.58 of 2019 Reserved on:25.02.2026 Decided on: 02.03.2026 Ramesh Kalia & another .Appellants Versus Mohammad Hameed ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellants: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ambika Thakur, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge The present regular second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 1st October, 2018, as passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P., whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. dated 14^th May, 2018 was affirmed.

2. Brief facts, of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants preferred civil suit in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Chamba, for permanent prohibitory injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs are joint owner-in- possession of the land/property comprised in Khata-Khatoni No.693, 765, Khasra Nos.1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1966, 1969 and 1973, measuring 393-8 square yards, situated at Mauza Chamba town, Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P. It was averred that there exists an old boundary wall belonging to the plaintiffs over Khasra No.1958, 1959 andf 1960 and the plaintiffs and other co-sharers have constructed their houses within the said boundary wall about 15-16 years ago and they are peacefully enjoying the possession thereof. It was averred that adjoining to the boundary wall belonging to the plaintiffs over the suit land, there exists Khasra No.1954, which is owned and possessed by the defendant. Although, a two storied house is shown to be existin g in the revenue record. However, at the spot there is no house and the land was being used by the defendant for keeping malba. On 2^nd July, 2010, the defendant started removing the malba from land comprised in Khasra No.1954 and he started excavating the land beneath the boundary wall belonging to the plaintiffs. As per the case of the plaintiffs, though, the defendant was called upon not to excavate the land beneath the boundary wall as it will endanger the boundary, however, the defendant refused to oblige the plaintiffs. Therefore, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising any type of construction over the boundary wall comprised over Khasra Nos.1958, 1959 and 1960 and further from excavating the land beneath the said boundary wall in such a manner so as to damage the same out of total land/property comprised in Khasra Nos.1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1966, 1969 and 1973, measuring 393-08 square yards, situafted at Mauza Chamba Town-II, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. be passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant by raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel etc. On merits, it was stated in the written statement that there exists Khasra No.1954 owned by the defend ant. Besides this other khasra No.1955 exists adjoining to the house of the plaintiffs comprised in Khasra Nos.1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1966, 1969 and 1973. It was stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs have started discharging water from their lintel through pipe over the back wall of the property of the defendant comprised in Khasra No.1954 and 1955 and due to this act of nuisance, the wall of the defendant is deteriorating and decaying day by day and other portion of the property is also being damaged. Further, it was averred that while raising constructions, the plaintiffs have not left any set back towards the land of the defendant of their new construction. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiffs. 4. Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiffs by reiterating the contents of the plain