Narainu Devi vs State of H.P. and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.

CMP (M) No. 451/2013

For the reasons stated in the application, delay, which has sufficiently been explained, in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

RSA No. 159/2013

Plaintiff-appellant Narainu Devi (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2011, titled as Narainu Devi versus State of H.P. and another, whereby judgment and decree dated 30.8.2011, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. IV, Hamripur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 36 of 2006, RBT No. 345/09, titled as Narainu Devi versus State of H.P. and another, stands affirmed.

Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). She claimed to be owner in possession over the suit land and prayed for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from dispossessing her. Plaintiff purchased land adjoining to the suit land. She raised construction over her land as also the suit land. Defendants objected and started demolishing the same. Defendants pleaded that the land in question was encroached upon by the plaintiff.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for non compliance of mandatory injunction (sic: provision) of Section 80 CPC, as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, as alleged? OPD

Relief.

Appreciating the evidence so led by the parties as also the material placed on record, trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had not perfected her title over the suit land. Lower appellate Court, in an appeal filed by the plaintiff, affirmed such findings of fact and dismissed the appeal. Revenue record placed by the parties evidences the fact that the land in question belongs to the State. It is not the plaintiff''s case that the State slept over the matter or that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land has been hostile to the defendants over a continuous period of time. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are perverse, illegal, erroneous or not based on the evidence produced by the parties, warranting interference in the present appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for determination in this appeal

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal, devoid of any merits, is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.