IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 280 of 2024.

Decided on :27 ^th April, 2026.

Ram Pal & another ...Appellants.

Versus f Mehar Chand & Others ....Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. dated 27.08.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., dated 08.01.2023, was affirmed whereby the

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction on the groufnd that the suit land is measuring 0-3 biswas bearing tatima Khasra No. 360/2, out of Khasra No.360 (5 Bighas 16 Biswas), comprised in Khata/Khatauni Nos. 108/124 min, siutuated in the area of Village Kaundi, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. It has been contended in the plaint that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of total land measuring 5 bighas 16 biswas, bearing Khasra No. 360 and defendants have forcibly, illegally and in malafide manner encroached upon the suit land to the extent of 0-3 biswas, The said encroachment was done by defendants despite knowing that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property. The Tehsildar, Baddi demarcated the land of the plaintiffs on 30.06.2024 in the presence of defendants and other persons including adjoining land owners. In the said demarcation, it was found that the defendants have unauthorisedly encroached upon

0-3 biswas of land out of khasra No. 360. The said revenue officer prepared the tatima of the encroached area which has been shown by the demarcating officer as tatima khasra No. 360/2 in his report.

3. Pursuant to the demarcationf, request was made to the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit land as they are absolute owner owners of the same. However, the defendants, who areu adamant, refused to handover the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs and further threatened to encroach upon the remaining part of khasra No. 360 forcibly and illegally and to change the nature and character of the suit land i.e. land measuring 0-3 biswas, bearing tatima khasra No. 360/2, out of Khasra No.360( 5 bighas 16 biswas), comprised in Khata/Khatauni Nos. 108 min/124 min, situated in Village Kundi, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Further, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, changing nature, character and raising construction over the suit land was also sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendants.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement raising preliminary objections with respect of maintainability, cause of action and locus standi etc. On merits, it was averred that the defendants are in possession 0-3 biswas area comprised in tatima Khasra No. 360/2, ofut of Khasra No.360, total measuring 5 bighas, 16 biswas. That the possession of the defendants is peaceful and adverse within the knowledge of plaintiffs and their pruedecessor-in-title. It has been averred that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, Shri Kirpu and Smt. Harnami, were previous owners of the suit property and Shri Hari Ram Predecessor-in-title of the defendants entered into possession of the suit property about 70 years ago and built a house over the same and he remained in possession of the suit property within the knowledge of Shri