Vishwa Karma Mandir/Sarai Committee vs Rajinder Kumar & Anr

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The plaintiff/appellant herein, instituted hence Civil Suit, bearing RBT Civil Suit No. 282/09/1998, before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-I, Dharamshala, and, therethrough, it, claimed rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, for restraining, the, defendant, from, interfering, with its peaceful possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, (i) and, also in the alternative thereto, it, claimed qua in the event of the plaintiff, standing dispossessed, from, any part of the suit property, during, the pendency of the civil suit, before the learned trial Court, thereupon, a, mandatory injunction, by demolition, of structure, if any, raised, upon, the suit khasra number, being pronounced, (ii) besides also claimed, a, decree for recovery, of, Rs.5000/ towards the price of mango tree existing, on, the suit khasra number, and, allegedly felled, from, the suit khasra number. The learned trial Court rendered a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction, wherethrough, it restrained the defendant(s), from, raising any construction, upon, the suit khasra number, and also rendered, a, decree of Rs.2000/-, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, comprising the price of two mango trees, illegally felled from the suit khasra number rather by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 becoming aggrieved therefrom, hence, instituted, a, civil appeal, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, upon the afore civil appeal, the, learned first Appellate Court, made a verdict hence accepting the apposite appeal, and, also obviously set aside, the, judgment, and, decree appealed therebefore, and, directed against, the, verdict rendered, by, the learned trial Court, upon, civil suit No. 282/09/1998.

The plaintiff becoming aggrieved therefrom, has, for striving to set aside, the, verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, hence, instituted, the, extant regular second appeal, before, this Court.

The learned trial Court, had, proceeded to render the afore stated decrees, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, it had in making, an, affirmative verdict, upon, the afore civil suit, hence relied, upon, Ex. P-7, exhibit whereof, is, an order passed, on 26.09.1998 by the Tehsildar concerned, (i) wherethrough, defendant No.1 was found, in, illegal possession, of, Khasra No. 854/1, 855/1, 916/1 and 916/3. However, the learned first appellate court, had, dispelled, the, efficacy of Ex.P-7, (ii) and, the reason for dispelling, the, efficacy, of, Ex.P-7, stood grooved, in, the factum qua Ex.P-7, becoming set aside, by, the Sub Divisional Collector, through, the, latter making an order comprised, in, Ex. AX. Since, the order comprised in Ex. Ax, has, remained unestablished, to, suffer reversal, from, the higher echelons, in, the hierarchy of revenue officers, (ii) thereupon, it has acquired apt conclusivity. Consequently, the learned first appellate Court, had, concluded qua gross fallacious reliance being placed, by, the learned trial Court, upon, Ex.P-7, and, thereafter, it, proceeded to disconcur, with, the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, the afore civil suit. Visibly, the afore assigned reason, hence, by the learned first appellate Court, to dispel, the efficacy, of, Ex.P-7, is well merited, and, does not warrant any inference being made by this Court. Further, thereonwards, during, the pendency, of, the apposite civil appeal before the learned first appellate court, the latter, had, made an order, for, appointment, of, a local commissioner, and, the local commissioner, had, tendered before the learned first appellate Court, a demarcation report, wherewith stood appended, a, tatima, (iv) and, disclosures are made therein, vis-a-vis, each of the contesting litigants becoming ascertained, to, hold possession rather within the tracts of land, whereons they are declared, in, the revenue records, to, hold ownership. Succinctly, in the report, filed by the local commissioner, hence, before the learned first appellate Court, no encroachment, by the defendant, upon, the land owned, and, possessed by the plaintiff, rather stoodnoticed. However, the plaintiff had instituted objections qua therewith, and, therein emphasised the factum (v) qua with there being contradistinctivities inter se the unfoldings borne, in, Ex.P-7, and, the report prepared, by, the local commissioner, as, stood appointed by the learned first appellate Court, during, the pendency of the apposite civil appeal, before it, hence, no reliance being made, upon, the latter report. The afore objection, stood, aptly rejected by the learned first appellate Court, as, Ex.P-7, for the afore well merited reason , rather holds no tenacity.

Be that as it may, though, for, overwriting(s) existing in the musabi, wherefrom, the ascertainments, of, fixed points/pacca points, was/were to be made, by the local commissioner, prior to its holding, the, apt measurements, and, consequent therewith, he was, to, hold, hence demarcation, of, the contiguous estates, of, the contesting litigants, rather rendered him disabled, to, make the afore relevant ascertainments. However, dehors the afore disabling overwriting, hence, existing in the musabi, and, also bearing in mind, qua, the local commissioner, not, making the relevant ascertainments, of, the relevant fixed/pacca points hence therefrom, (a) rather his befittingly making, the apt recorusing, from, the, signatured statements, of, the authorised representatives of the plaintiff, and, also the respondents/defendants, and, wherein each accepted, the, therein echoed apt fixed point(s), and, wherethrough, the relevant demarcation, hence, was, to, be conducted, (b) besides with the local commissioner, making an unequivocal echoing(s) in his report, vis-a-vis, his thereafter adopting, the, ordained canons, for his conducting, demarcation, of, the contiguous estates, of, the contesting litigants, rather render(s), the acceptance of his report, by, the learned first appellate court, and, also its accepting the defendant's appeal, becoming construable to be meritworthy.

The effect of the above discussion is qua, any wrangle, as, made before this Court, by, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, vis- a-vis, there being an infirmity, in, the demarcation, conducted, by, the local commissioner, appointed, by the learned first appellate Court, on anvil of there occurring, rather overwriting(s), in, the musabi, hence, stands belied, (i) as, the authorised representative of the plaintiff, and, of the defendant prior, to, the local commissioner proceeding, to, hold the demarcation, of, the contiguous estates, of, the contesting litigants, under, the their signatured statements, rather ensuring, qua, all the afore rather therethrough hence making, the, befitting consensual echoings, vis-a-vis, the apt reckonable para meter, for, thereafter hence the demarcation, of, the contiguous estates, of, the contesting litigants, becoming validly conducted.

The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first appellate court, being based, upon a proper, and, mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first appellate Court has not excluded germane, and, apposite material from consideration. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, hence, arises for determination, in this appeal.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgment, and, decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, upon, Civil Appeal No. 77/XIII/2013, is, affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.