1 2025:HHC:18946 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.464 of 2019 Reserved on: March 10, 2025 Date of Decision: June 20, 2025 Maheshwar Dutt ….Appellant-Plaintiff. Versus Balak Ram ..Respondent-Defendant. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Digvijay Singh Bisht, vice Mr.Bhagwati Chander Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Appellant has filed this appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2019 passed by Additional District Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.69 of 2016, titled as Maheshwar Dutt vs. Balak Ram, whereby appeal has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Suit No.9 of 2014, titled as Maheshwar Dutt vs. Balak Ram, dismissing the suit preferred by the appellant for declaration and consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, has been affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:18946 2. Appeal was admitted on 16.03.2020 on following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?” 3. On 03.01.2025, additional substantial question of law on application filed by the appellant, has also been framed, which reads as under:- “Whether both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the Revenue Authorities have acted illegally and partition proceedings have not been carried out according to principle of natural justice and law as laid down by the Courts and mandatory procedure prescribed?” 4. For convenience, parties to the lis are being referred hereinafter as per their status in the Civil Suit. Plaintiff and defendant are real brothers. 5. Plaintiff had approached the Trial Court by filing Civil Suit seeking declaration that the suit land was joint between the plaintiff and defendant and had not been partitioned in accordance with prescribed procedure, Act, Rules, and that orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, i.e. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sub- Divisional Collector, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner (Appeals), in partition proceedings as well as in appeals and revision arising thereto, are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff; with further prayer to restrain the defendant permanently from interfering with possession of the plaintiff on the basis of partition proceedings, under challenge; and 3 2025:HHC:18946 restraining from claiming that suit land has been partitioned on the basis of orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and also from getting the revenue entries changed showing defendant in exclusive possession with respect to any portion of the suit land in both Villages namely Mohal Bag and Mohal Deol in Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., wherein suit land is situated. 6. Plaintiff alongwith plaint has placed on record copies of orders dated 22.08.2007 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in Partition Case Nos.109 and 110 of 2003 in partition proceedings filed by the defendant, wherein plaintiff was respondent, as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2; copies of orders dated 30.12.2008 passed by Sub- Divisional Collector in appeals preferred by the plaintiff as Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4; copies of mode of partition proceedings determined in Case Nos.109 of 2003 and 110 of 2003 as Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6; copies of orders dated 24.07.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner in Appeal Nos. 168 and 169 of 2010 as Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8; copies of orders dated 22.10.2013 passed by Financial Commissioner in Revision Petition Nos.12 and 13 of 2013 as Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10; copies of orders dated 16.02.2010 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in Case Nos.109 and 110 of 2003 as Ex.P-11 and P-12; copies of instruments of partition dated 04.10.2007 with respect to Mauja Deol and Mauja Bag as Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-14; and copy of summons issued on 01.02.2014 by the Revenue Authorities to the plaintiff directing him to appear before the Revenue Authorities on 03.02.2014 as Ex.P-15. 7. Plaintiff, including himself, examined five witnesses. 4 2025:HHC:18946 8. PW.1-Inder Singh, Record Keeper from the Copying Agency, has proved that Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 are true and certified copies of the record by producing original record which was seen and returned. 9. Plaintiff-Maheshwer Dutt has examined himself as PW.2. PW.3-Khub Chand, PW.4-Chop Ram and PW.5-Satyapal have been examined as witnesses of the plaintiff, who have deposed that suit land had already been partitioned in the family partition in the year 1998. 10. Defendant has examined himself as DW.1 and he has not placed on record any documentary evidence and has referred and relied orders passed by the Revenue Authorities already placed on record by the plaintiff. 11. Stand of the plaintiff in the plaint as well as replication is that suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties, i.e. plaintiff and defendant, and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities including preparation of instruments of partition, in the proceedings of partition initiated by the defendant, which have been upheld by all Revenue Courts, are not in consonance with provisions of relevant Act and Rules. But neither in the plaint nor in his oral and documentary evidence it has been demonstrated that which of the provision of the Act and/or Rules has not been followed by the Revenue Authorities. 12. In his deposition, in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination, plaintiff, as PW.2, has proved proceedings initiated by the defendant for partition and various orders passed by the Revenue Authorities i.e. A.C. 1st Grade, Sub-Divisional Collector, 5 2025:HHC:18946 Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in the applications filed for partition by the defendant as well as appeals and revision preferred by the plaintiff. 13. In the plaint, it is nowhere claimed by the plaintiff that land was partitioned in private family settlement in the year 1998 and he was not given any opportunity to prove the family partition. However, while deposing on oath in the Court, he claimed that land had already been partitioned in Khangi Takseem (family partition) and parties were in possession of their respective share of the suit land, according to family partition. He has further alleged that instrument of partition prepared by the Revenue Authorities is not in consonance with mode of partition. In his cross-examination, he has admitted serving of summons upon him in the partition proceedings initiated before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, opportunity given to him to file reply and for making statement. He has also admitted visiting of Revenue Officials and Officers on the spot and, thereafter, continuation of partition proceedings before Assistant Collector 1st Grade and passing of final order. He has claimed that a document of family partition was prepared in the year 1998 in writing, which was handed over to the defendant, but defendant did not give that writing to the plaintiff despite repeated requests and the said partition had taken place in presence of Pradhan Chet Ram, Rattan Lal and Khub Chand. Chet Ram and Rattan Lal had expired at the time of recording evidence, whereas, Khub Chand has been examined as PW.3. In his statement, plaintiff has further stated that after family partition, share which was 6 2025:HHC:18946 allotted to defendant, was left and given by the plaintiff to the defendant. 14. PW.3-Khub Chand, though, has claimed that family partition took place in his presence as well as in presence of Rattan Lal and Chet Ram and they had prepared a written document about family partition, but he has expressed his ignorance that to whom that written document was handed over by Chet Ram. According to him, plaintiff was cultivating land falling in his share, but he has expressed his ignorance about the land allotted to Balak Ram. In cross-examination, he has stated that it was correct that they had never gone to measure the land on the spot and he had also stated that he was not knowing about quantum of land in respective possession of plaintiff and defendant. 15. PW.4-Chop Ram and PW.5-Satyapal are not witnesses to the alleged partition. Though, in their examination-in-chief, there is recital of family partition taken place in the year 1998, but in cross-examination they have admitted that no family partition took place in their presence, nor any Kanungo or Patwari had visited the spot in their presence. PW.5, even in his examination-in-chief, has stated that nothing had happened in their presence. However, in the next line, he had restated that partition had taken place between plaintiff and defendant. 16. Plaintiff has not taken plea of family partition in his pleadings, including the plaint, but while appearing as a witness, he has claimed family partition between the parties and other witnesses have also been examined to substantiate plea of family partition. It is settled law that evidence beyond scope of pleadings 7 2025:HHC:18946 is neither admissible nor having any evidenciary value especially to substantiate the claim of the party failed to plead the fact in its pleadings with respect to which evidence is led at the time of recording evidence and, therefore, plea of family partition and evidence related thereto, led during trial has no bearing on the suit, rather has to be discarded for the reason that fact intended to be proved by leading such evidence is not pleaded in the plaint or replication. 17. It is also apt to record that entire case of the plaintiff is that suit land is in joint ownership and possession of the parties and partition by the Revenue Authorities has not been carried out in accordance with principle of natural justice and law laid down by the Courts and mandatory procedure prescribed for that. But at the same time, demolishing the plea taken in the plaint, regarding joint ownership and possession of the suit land, plaintiff in his deposition as well as by examining PWs.3 to 5 has himself demolished his pleas taken in the plaint with respect to joint ownership and possession of the suit land amongst the parties. Plaintiff’s case is bound to fail for self destructive contradictory pleas. 18. Admissions of receiving the summons, giving opportunity to file reply and for making statement, in his deposition in the Court as PW.2, clearly depicts that ample opportunity was given to the plaintiff by the Revenue Authorities/Courts to prove his version, but from the record it appears that at no point of time and nowhere, plaintiff had pleaded family partition taken place between the parties and, therefore, it appears that plaintiff intends to drag the proceedings for indefinite period in revenue Courts and Civil 8 2025:HHC:18946 Court in order to deprive the defendant from his share in the suit land for which, in terms of finalized partition proceedings, defendant is entitled. 19. Though plaintiff has placed on record all orders and instrument of partition passed/issued by the Revenue Authorities, but, despite raising objection by the plaintiff, nothing has been pointed out to substantiate the plea that in what manner and in which proceeding, which of the procedure prescribed under relevant Act and law, has not been followed. 20. Once matter has been decided by the Revenue Authorities till Financial Commissioner (Appeals), plaintiff was having right to invoke jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for judicial review of the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), but was not having right to approach Civil Court particularly for bar created under Section 171 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘H.P.L.R. Act’) excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts from entertaining the suit with respect to proceedings conducted under H.P.L.R. Act. On this count also suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. 21. No doubt in certain circumstances Civil Court may have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but plaintiff has also failed to point out violation of any procedure prescribed or provision of Act and Rules, related to the partition proceedings so as to enable the Civil Court to exercise its jurisdiction to declare orders, in reference, passed by the Revenue Courts, as null and void or illegal. 9 2025:HHC:18946 22. Learned counsel for the plaintiff to substantiate the prayer for allowing the appeal, has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.113 of 1992, titled as Pritam Singh vs. Jaskaur Singh; RSA No.1235 of 1983, titled as Subh Ram and others vs. Rajinder Singh and another; and RSA No.3650 of 1987, titled as Jamil vs. Hassan Mohammad and others. 23. I have gone through the aforesaid judgments and I am of the considered opinion that in the given facts and circumstances, these judgments are of no help to the plaintiff. 24. During pendency of appeal, plaintiff has also preferred an application CMP No.15313 of 2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence for placing on record attested copies related to proceedings of partition of suit land conducted by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. These documents are application filed by the plaintiff for partition, copies of order sheets and copies of mode of partition determined vide order dated 21.10.2003 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. All these documents were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit, pendency of the appeal before First Appellate Court and at the time of filing present appeal in the year 2019. However, the aforesaid application has been filed in November 2021. 25. It is also apt to record that in view of nature of pleadings and self destructive evidence led by the plaintiff, documents proposed to be produced in evidence are not required 10 2025:HHC:18946 by this Court to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. 26. Documents proposed to be placed on record in evidence were never intended to be placed on record in evidence either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court and, thus, there was no question of refusal by the Courts below to admit these documents in evidence. 27. Plaintiff has also failed to establish the relevancy of these documents to decide the present lis particularly when all orders passed by the Revenue Authorities have already been placed on record, including applications filed by the defendant for partition, orders passed by A.C. 1st Grade, order determining mode of partition. 28. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances and conduct of the plaintiff, it is also apparent that plaintiff has failed to produce documents proposed to be produced in additional evidence despite the fact that this evidence was very much in his knowledge. Plintiff has failed to exercise due diligence in producing these documents at the time of passing of judgments and decrees by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court, and even at the time of filing present appeal. 29. In view of above discussion, I do not find any necessity of the documents proposed to be led in evidence are required for pronouncing the judgment and plaintiff has also failed to establish any justifiable cause for not producing these documents at earlier stage despite due diligence. Therefore, application CMP No.15313 of 2021 is dismissed being devoid of merit. 11 2025:HHC:18946 30. Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have considered the pleadings and evidence on record in its right perspective and I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the findings returned by the Courts below so as to conclude that findings returned by the Courts below are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of evidence and material on record and are against settled position of law. There is nothing on record to construe that Revenue Authorities have acted illegally and partition proceedings have not been carried out according to principle of natural justice and law laid down by the Courts and mandatory procedure prescribed by the Courts. Findings of the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of facts and law. 31. Substantial questions of law are answered in aforesaid terms. 32. In view of above, appeal is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. June 20, 2025 (Purohit)