( 2025:HHC:29211 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 377 of 2018 Reserved on: 21.08.2025 Date of decision: 29.08.2025. Veena Rani alias Veena Devi ...Appellant Versus Smt. Sat Bhama and another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, the appellant/defendant No.1 seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Civil Appeal No. 40-K/14/2013, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 122/2007 has been affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2025:HHC:29211 ) 2. Heard learned Counsel for parties and record also perused. 3. The dispute relates to the rights over the land comprised in Khata No. 48, Khatauni No. 85, Khasra No. 312, measuring 0-03-44 hectares situated at Mahal Kanjehr, Mauza Ghurkari, Tehsil and District Kangra (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). 4. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein along with other co-owners of the suit land, filed a suit seeking decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the appellant/defendant from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant over the suit land. 5. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before learned trial Court. 6. The case as set up by the plaintiffs was that the suit land was owned by them alongwith one Sant Ram, who later had transferred his share in the suit land to the proforma defendant by way of registered sale deed. Thus, the plaintiffs, claiming themselves and proforma defendant as -3- ( 2025:HHC:29211 ) the co-owner in possession of the suit land, had alleged that the defendants were strangers to the suit land and were trying to interfere therein without any right, title or interest. 7. Defendant Veena Rani filed written statement to the effect that she was adopted daughter of Sant Ram and after Sant Ram was in possession of the suit land to the extent of share of Sant Ram. The defendant also claimed title over the suit land on the basis of a Will allegedly executed in her favour by Sant Ram. It was alleged that there was a house on part of the suit land in which the defendant was residing since the life time of Sant Ram. The sale deed executed by Sant Ram in favour of proforma defendant was also alleged to be null and void. 8. The defendant also filed counter claim seeking declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 14.10.2005 executed by Sant Ram in favour of proforma defendant and mutation dated 28.11.2005 attested on its basis was wrong, illegal, null and void. 9. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: -4- ( 2025:HHC:29211 ) “i) Whether defendant No.1 is stranger to the suit land, as alleged? OPP “ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the defendants are causing unlawful interference into their proprietary rights and joint possession as co- shares in and over the suit land as alleged? OPP. iii) In the case the defendants succeed in dispossessing the plaintiffs and proforma defendants form any part of the suit land, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession? OPP. iv) Whether sale deed dated 14.10.2005 purportedly executed by Basant Ram @ Sant Ram in favour of defendant No.3 is the result of fraud and collusion, as alleged? OPP1. v) If issue No.4 is proved in affirmative, whether defendant No.1 is entitled to a decree of declaration by way of Counter Claim as alleged? OPD1. vi) Whether abovenamed Basant Ram @ Sant Ram had executed a registered will dated, 7.11.2003 in favour of defendant No.1, if so, its effect? OPD1. vii) Whether the suit preferred by the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD1. viii) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct form filling the present suit? OPD1. ix) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD1. x) Whether the counter claim preferred by the defendant is not maintainable? OPP. xi) Whether defendant No.1 is estopped by his act and conduct form filling the counter claim? OPP. -5- ( 2025:HHC:29211 ) xii) Whether the counter claim has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPP. xiii) Whether the counter claim preferred by defendant No.1 is not within time? OPP. xiv) Relief. 10. Issues No. 1 & 2 were decided in affirmative; rest of the issues were answered in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was passed restraining the defendant Veena Rani from dispossessing the plaintiffs from suit land, changing the nature thereof and raising any construction thereon. 11. Noticeably, the defendant had withdrawn her counter claim before learned trial Court. 12. Learned trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff had held that the suit land was initially co-owned by original plaintiffs and Sant Ram. The share of Sant Ram in the suit land was transferred in favour of proforma defendant before filing of the suit. After filing of the suit plaintiffs No.2 to 4 had also transferred their shares in the suit land in -6- ( 2025:HHC:29211 ) favour of proforma defendant and thereafter plaintiff Sat Bhama and proforma defendant remained the co-owners in possession of the suit land. 13. Learned trial court did not find merit in the claim of the defendant over the suit land. Since, the challenge laid by the defendant to the sale deed by way of counter claim had already been withdrawn, and, there being no challenge left to the sale deed executed by Sant Ram in favour of proforma defendant, defendant was rightly held to have no title over the suit land. 14. Further, defendant Veena Rani had also failed to prove before learned trial court any right, title or interest in the suit land on the basis of Will allegedly executed by Sant Ram in her favour. 15. Learned first appellate Court in appeal filed by defendant Veena Rani affirmed the findings returned by learned trial Court and consequently, affirmed the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. 16. The findings rendered by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first appellate court are otherwise also -7- ( 2025:HHC:29211 ) duly borne from the record. Learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant/defendant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by both the courts. 17. The defendant preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC before learned first appellate Court for leading additional evidence. The defendant sought to place and prove on record the Will allegedly executed by Sant Ram in her favour. In addition, a prayer was also made to place and prove on record certain electricity bills, jamabandis, ration card, photographs and copy of certificate showing receipt of Rs.1500/- issued by Sant Ram for construction of toilet, in order to prove her possession over the suit land. 18. Learned first appellate Court dismissed the application for additional evidence for the reasons that no ground as envisaged by law was made out. It was observed that the defendant despite availing sufficient opportunities had failed to produce and prove such documents before learned trial Court. Learned first appellate Court found that -8- ( 2025:HHC:29211 ) a similar application had been filed by the defendant in the first round, when appeal was filed by the defendant against the decree passed by learned trial Court and the matter was remanded to learned trial Court for decision afresh. In such background, it has been held that even at that stage i.e. after the remand of the case the defendant had not taken any steps before learned trial Court to lead evidence. 19. Another ground on which the application has been dismissed is that the Court did not find the documents to be of such nature, which would help the Court in deciding the controversy. 20. Admittedly, the defendant had not led any evidence on the Will allegedly executed by Sant Ram in her favour. The belated attempt made by the defendant to prove said fact at the stage of first appeal, remained unsuccessful as noticed above. In that regard also, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and decree for the reasons, firstly, that no case for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was made out and in alternative, since the sale deed executed by Sant Ram in favour of proforma defendant was -9- ( 2025:HHC:29211 ) not under challenge, the Will, if any of Sant Ram, in favour of the defendant would not have made any difference on the merits of the case. The inter vivos transfer of the share of Sant Ram in any case had rendered the Will, if any,ß nugatory. 21. Learned first appellate Court has further rightly held that the documents i.e. jamabandis, ration card, electricity bills etc. could not be used by the defendants at belated stage. Even otherwise, the defendant could not have been able to prove her possession over the suit land as there was no evidence that the house allegedly occupied by Sant Ram at one stage was constructed over the suit land. 22. In result, no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Decree Sheet be accordingly prepared and records be sent back. 23. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 29th August, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge