IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.285/2022 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 Roshan Lal .....Appellant. Versus Kisharu Ram (deceased) through Banti Devi and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(e). Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). This Regular Second Appeal was preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) against the impugned judgment dated 29.8.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2022 whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge Kullu, District Kullu in Civil Suit No. 178 of 2014. 2. The appellant, as plaintiff, instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent/defendant concerning a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 portion of vacant land adjoining his house, shown as EFGH in the site plan, situated on Abadi Deh land bearing Khasra No. 246. The plaintiff’s case was that while various right holders, including both parties, owned and possessed respective portions of this Abadi land for their houses, he was in specific possession of the vacant suit land, using it for kitchen gardening and stacking wood. He alleged that in July 2014, the defendant threatened to and began interfering with this possession by removing stacked wood and intending to encroach upon the land by raising construction. 3. The defendant contested the suit, admitting the common ownership of the Abadi land but specifically denying that the plaintiff was in possession of the portion marked EFGH. The defendant asserted that this specific portion was, in fact, part of his own share, which he had fully covered, and that the plaintiff had no right or concern with it. 4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 22.11.2016:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? - OPP. 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? - OPD. 3. Relief. 5. After recording evidence, wherein the plaintiff examined himself and two rebuttal witnesses and the defendant examined himself, the trial court dismissed the suit. It held that the plaintiff had failed to 3 prove his possession over the suit land and found the suit to be not maintainable. 6. In the first appeal, the appellant/plaintiff assailed the judgment on the grounds that it was contrary to law and facts. The arguments raised were that the trial court committed a grave illegality by failing to properly appreciate the trustworthy documentary and oral evidence adduced by the appellant, which specifically identified the suit land and proved the defendant’s interference. It was contended that undue weight was given to the bald statement of the defendant (DW-1), while the cogent evidence of the plaintiff (PW-1) and his rebuttal witnesses, along with the contradictions in the defendant’s cross- examination, were ignored. The appellant argued that the finding that there was nothing on record to suggest the appellant’s possession was erroneous and based on conjectures. Further, the finding on the maintainability of the suit was challenged as being devoid of detailed reasoning and based on a case not pleaded by the defendant. The impugned judgment was alleged to have made out a new case for the respondent and ignored salient circumstances proved on record. Therefore, the present second appeal. 7. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 8. The grant of a permanent prohibitory injunction is an equitable remedy contingent upon the plaintiff establishing a demonstrable legal right and an actual or imminent infringement thereof. 4 A fundamental corollary to this principle is the doctrine that a party seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands, which entails a duty of utmost good faith and a full disclosure of material facts. The appellant’s claim is fundamentally undermined by a conspicuous failure to meet this standard. 9.. The evidentiary record reveals a profound lack of specificity in the plaintiff’s assertions regarding the very subject matter of the suit. The evidence shows that the appellant was unable to provide clear details about the property he claims. He could not properly identify his specific share in the land, which is owned jointly by many people. He also admitted that the land has never been formally divided to show which part belongs to him. 10. The appellant’s inability to precisely define the subject of the dispute is further exacerbated by his own admission that he never sought an official demarcation of his alleged share in the undivided property. This failure to undertake a basic procedural step is significant. Presenting a claim founded on such indefinite and unverified assertions is fundamentally at odds with the principles of fairness and good faith required from any party seeking the court’s equitable intervention. 11. Consequently, the appellant has not only failed to substantiate a clear and identifiable legal right but has also disentitled himself to discretionary relief by failing to satisfy the requisite standard for permanent prohibitory injunction. The concurrent findings of both the courts below, which correctly identified this fatal lacuna in the plaintiff’s 5 case, are firmly grounded in the evidence and disclose no error warranting intervention in a second appeal. 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much- less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 22nd September, 2025 (Tarun)