In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence; re-appreciating evidence to reach a different conclusion than the lower courts is impermissible.

Romesh Verma, Judge(oral)

The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree as passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., dated 20.10.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., dated 28.02.2017 has been affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for possession was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Chatro filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment/dispossession of the defendants from the land comprised in Khata No.110 min, Khatauni No.287, Khasra Nos.655, 1105 and 1109, plots-3, land measuring 0-12-59 Hms, situated in Mohal Ghar, Mouza Harsar, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra, H.P. It has been averred in the plaint that earlier the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff, but the land in question was under settlement operation and the defendants, in collusion and connivance with the settlement authorities, got themselves recorded as Kabiz over the suit land against the factual position existing on the spot that too behind the back of the plaintiff. As per jamabandi for the year 1977-1978, the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff. The suit land remained in possession of the plaintiff until November 2002, during which time he was deriving all kinds of benefits from the same. The defendants under the garb of wrong entry of being Kabiz have illegally trespassed on the suit land in the last week of November 2002 and forcibly and unlawfully took possession of it. The possession of the defendants over the suit land is void, wrong, illegal, unauthorized and of a trespasser. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for possession by way of ejectment/dispossession from the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant Dayalu by filing a written statement. Preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, valuation etc. were taken. On merits, it was averred that, in fact, the plaintiffs and defendants are real brothers and earlier the suit land along with other land owned and possessed by the father of the parties to the suit, namely, Khithu @ Situ. After the death of the father of the parties to the suit, the suit land along with other land has been inherited by the parties to the suit. During the recent consolidation operation, the land owned by the parties to the suit, which was inherited by them from their father, was got partitioned and the suit land came in the share of the plaintiff, but remained in the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff in October 1976 asked the defendants to vacate the suit land or exchange it with him, however, the defendants did not vacate the same. It was further averred that as per mutual understanding and with the intervention of local villagers, the defendants gave land measuring 9 marlas in Khasra No.654, which was adjoining to the residential house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter despite of the knowledge since October 1976 never asked the defendant to vacate the suit land. Consequently, the present suit has been filed at a belated stage. Furthermore, it was averred that the suit land is in poss