Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 26th March 2012 passed by learned District Judge Shimla H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 1.5.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Shimla, HP (learned trial Court) were partly modified. (The 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 rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that he is the owner-in- possession of the Palace Complex situated in Khasra No. 487, Village Suni, Mauja Barabal, Tehsil Suni and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove themselves, their personal effects and belongings from the aforesaid Palace Complex. A Permanent Prohibitory Injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the palace was also sought. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was the recognised Ruler of the erstwhile State of Bhajji. A certificate dated 30.3.1984 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to this effect. Plaintiff is the born son of the late Rana Bir Pal Singh of Bhajji State. Late Rana Bir Pal Singh was deposed by the British Government in the year 1939, and the plaintiff was recognised as the Ruler of Bhajji Estate. The plaintiff became the owner-in-possession of the property owned by the Ruler of Bhajji, including the Palace Complex. Plaintiff waus in Government service by virtue of his being a Membero of the Indian Administrative Service from 1952 till 1982 aCnd remained out of Suni in connection with his services. Defendant No. 1 is the plaintiff’s younger brother. The plaintiff entrusted his properties to defendant No.1 as a caretaker. The plaintiff provided money for the upkeep/maintenance of his property. The plaintiff wanted to settle at Suni after his retirement, but Defendant No. 1 created obstructions. The plaintiff demanded the rendition of the accounts, but in vain. The defendant locked the old portion of the Palace Complex and denied access to the plaintiff; hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by limitation, Order II Rule 2 and res judicata, and the plainti being estopped from filing the suit by his act, conduct and acquiescence. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the plaintiff had filed the suit in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Shimla, which was transferred to the Couurt of learned Sub Judge-III, who returned it for presentatioon before the proper Court. The plaintiff filed the suit afterC making additions and alterations that are impermissible. The plaintiff is out of possession, and he has not sought the relief of possession. The mesne profit has been sought for more than three years, which is impermissible. The plaintiff ha