IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 68 of 2004 Reserved on: 12.3.2026 Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 Bhim Chand ...Appellant Versus Hans Raj (deceased) through LRs ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant : Mr Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr Pranjal Munjal, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate, g with Mr Aman Sood, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra, at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2000, passed by learned Sub Judge First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld

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

(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rHise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration that he is in possession as a non-occupancy tenant of the land comprised in Khata No.66 (min), Khatauni No. 187, Khasra No. 1161, measuring 0-36-05 hectares, as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94, situated in Mohal Pantehar, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and the order of SDO (Civil), Baijnath, dated 17.03.199 7 is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. He also sought a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession of the suit land or raising any structure over the suit land or interfering with the suit land in any manner whatsoever. 3. It was asserted that the suit land is recorded in the possession of the plaintiff as a non-occupancy tenant under Vinod Kumar and others. The defendant is a stranger, who has no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendant, in connivance with the Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade-cum-

Tehsildar, Baijnath, deleted the plaintiff’s name from the column of cultivation by misrepresenting the facts and incorporated his name. The learned Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade-cum-Tehsildar decided the application without jurisdiction on 17.11.1986. The defendant threatened to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on 15.06.1997; hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, cause of action and locus standi, the plaintiff being es topped by his act and conduct to file the present suit, and the suit being bad for non-joinder/mis-joinder of parties. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the defendant is in possession of the suit land as a non-occupancy tenant and he has every right, title, and interest in it. The application of the defendant was correctly decided by the learned Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade on 17.11.1986, and this order was upheld by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Baijnath. The suit has been filed without any basis; hence, it was prayed that it be dismissed.

5. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

6. The following issues were framHed by the learned Trial Court on 04.08.1998:

1. Whether the plaintiff is ion possession as non-occupancy tenant of the suit land? OPP.

2. Whether the order of SDO (Civil), Baijnath, dated

17.3.1997, is illegal, null and void? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.

6. CWhether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD