Uday Ram vs Tota Ram and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Plaintiff-appellant Uday Ram (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 21.7.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Civil Appeal No. 9-N/13 of 2011, titled as Uday Ram versus Tota Ram and others,, whereby judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, in Civil Suit No. 148/1 of 2008, titled as Uday Ram versus Tota Ram and others, stands affirmed. Plaintiff filed the suit, claiming himself to be owner in possession of the land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 336 min/1030 min, Khasra No. 4039/3662 min, measuring 0.9 bighas, and Khata Khatauni No. 245 min/822 min, Khasra No. 3660/625, measuring 1-5 bighas, situated in Mauza Kando Dugana, Patti Dugana, Sub-Tehsil Kamrao, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.

Significantly, with regard to 0.9 bigha of land, plaintiff had filed independent suit, which stands dismissed by the Courts below and such judgments and decrees stand affirmed by this Court.

With regard to 1-5 bighas of land, plaintiff claims himself to be owner in possession. Apprehending threat from the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.

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

Whether the plaintiff is in settled possession over the suit land and the defendants have no right to interfere in such possession of the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP

Whether the defendants on 13-11-2008, interfered over the suit land, as alleged? OPP

If issues No. 1 & 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as alleged? OPP

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has knowingly and deliberately concealed the true facts from this Court? OPD

Whether the suit has no been properly valued or the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit on account of his own act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD

Relief.

Both the Courts below concurrently held that plaintiff had concealed relevant information from the Court with regard to his ownership and possession over the suit land. It was found that over the suit land (1.5 bighas) there was a Gair Mumkin Sadak and the plaintiff was not in possession of this land. The Gair Mumkin Sadak (road) has been in use by the general public since long. Hence, I am of the considered view that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.

In order to put an end to the controversy in issue, this Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the spot. The Local Commissioner submitted his report, from which it is evident that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land (1.5 bigha). Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. The present appeal is dismissed. It is clarified that decision in the present appeal is not based on the findings/report of the Local Commissioner.

Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.