IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 576 of 2025 Reserved on : 06.04.2026 Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 ____________________________________________________ Chande Ram ...Petitioner. Versus Ramesh Kumar & others …..Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. B.L.Soni, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.S.Chandel, Advocate & Ms. Kiran, Advocates, for respondents No. 1 to 10. Respondents No. 13 & 22 are ex- parte. __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge The present petition arises out of the order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., whereby appeal preferred by the present petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC has been dismissed and order dated 16.12.2024 as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, H.P. has been affirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs- respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 2-3-0 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 4095 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 contained in Khatauni No. 2495 of Khata No. 1879 situated in Phatti Shillihar Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu for the year 1993-94 is owned and possessed by the respondents- plaintiffs No. 1 to 9 to the extent of 0-00 and plaintiff No. 10 to the extent of 0-3-0 bighas. It was averred in the plaint that the defendants No.1 and 2 -State of H.P., acquired the suit land to the extent of 1-1-10 bighas for the construction of the road in the year 1991 vide award dated 22.02.1991 and the road was constructed by the defendants No.1 and 2, State of H.P. but the revenue entries were not updated to this effect and the suit land in the revenue record remained in the name of Gokul Chand and Thakri. The land measuring 2-3-0 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 4095 was previously owned and possessed by Gokul Chand and Smt. Thakri in equal shares. The aforesaid Gokul Chand ( father of defendant No.3) out of his share measuring 0-10-10 bighas sold land measuring 0-2-0 bighas to Sumi defendant No.6 in the year 1992 and thereafter sold land measuring 0-3- 0 bighas to Chande Ram, defendant No.3, in the year 1993, thereafter, sold land measuring 0-3-0 bighas to Baghat Ram, plaintiff No.10, vide Sale Deed dated 30.07.1993 and 28.03.1994. Gokul Chand also sold land measuring 0-2-0 bighas 3 to Dev Raj predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No. 1 to 9 vide Sale Deed dated 07.09.1994. 3. As per plaintiff, he sold land measuring 0-10-0 bighas out of his share land measuring 0-10-10 bighas and after aforesaid sales, share of Gokul Chand remained in suit land to the extent of only 10 biswansi. The said Sh. Gokul Chand under the garb of wrong revenue entries in the revenue record sold 0- 3-0 bighas of land to Sher Singh and Nirmla, defendants No.7 and 8, in the year 1995 and further sold land measuring 0-1-10 bighas to Bir Singh @ Biru defendant No.4 in the year 1997, land measuring 0-2-0 bighas to Darshna, defendant No.5, in the year 1998 and the land measuring 0-3-0 bigha to Shyam Lal predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.9 to 12 in the year 1998. The said Sale Deeds were executed by Sh. Gokul Chand in excess of his share. Sh. Gokul Chand sold land measuring 0- 9-0 bighas in excess of his share by taking undue advantage of the wrong revenue entries. On coming to know about the said error in the revenue records, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Collector for the correction of the aforesaid mutations and the same is still pending. The defendant No.3 started digging the vacant portion of the suit land as shown with letters 4 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I in the site plan in order to raise construction without getting the suit land partitioned. Though, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to correct the revenue entries, however, the defendants did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiffs. Therefore, suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for seeking declaration that the land measuring 2-3-0 bighas is owned and possessed by plaintiffs Nos.1 to 9 and that the mutation No.11560 dated 03.12.2020 is wrong, illegal, null and void. They further prayed for decree for injunction to the effect that the defendants themselves and through their servants be restrained from raising any type of construction/ structure over the vacant portion of the suit land. 4. Along with the suit, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC with the prayer that the defendant No.3 be restrained from raising any kind of construction/structure over the vacant portion of the suit land. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants and all the averments as made in the plaint were refuted. It is averred that the plaintiffs have already constructed their dwelling houses after the acquisition proceedings in excess of their shares and that the defendants have raised the construction only over the 5 prospective dwelling houses within his owned settled share, which is necessary for the usage of the defendant and his family members. In case the defendant is restrained from raising construction of his house, it shall cause irreparable loss and injury to him, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. It is the denied that the vacant premises is the garden jointly held by the plaintiffs. It was further averred that the defendant No.3 is raising construction of a new residential house over his own exclusive share over the suit land, which has been earlier purchased by the replying defendant from respondent No.13. 6. In the reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, similar averments, as taken in the written statement, were made. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing the respective parties partly allowed the application as filed by the plaintiffs vide order dated 16.12.2024 and it was ordered that the parties shall maintain status quo qua the portion of the suit land depicted as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I in the site plan, Annexure A, till the final disposal of the suit. 8. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant No.3/petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC in the 6 Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, HP on 17.01.2025. The Learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as preferred by the present petitioner and the order as passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed. 9. Still feeling aggrieved, the defendant No.3/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is contended by Sh. B.L Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders as passed by the learned courts below are erroneous, and liable to be quashed and set-aside. He further submits that the Court below has wrongly passed the order of status quo by restraining the petitioner from raising the construction over the suit land, which is owned and possessed by him. 11 On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 10 has defended the impugned orders and he has submitted that the learned Courts below have concurrently passed the order in favour of the plaintiffs by injucting the present petitioner from raising construction over the suit land during the pendency of the 7 present suit, therefore, no interference of any kind is required to be made in the present proceedings. 12. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the case file. 13 The admitted case of the parties, which can be deciphered from the the copy of jamabandi, is that the suit land comprising of Khasra No. 4095 is joint between the parties and the same has not been partitioned as yet. 14 From the pleadings and the contentions as raised by the parties, it would be noticed that the respective parties have raised their construction over the suit land and further that certain portion of the suit land has been acquired by the State Government in the acquisition proceedings. 15 The Courts below have rightly came to the conclusion that the suit land is joint amongst the co-sharers. The petitioner/ defendants No.3 in order to raise construction over the vacant portion as depicted in the suit land has started raising the construction and it is case of the plaintiffs that since the vacant portion, over which the construction is being raised is a small portion of the land and till the time, the suit land is partitioned by the Competent Court of law, the defendant No.3/petitioner may 8 be restrained from raising any construction to the detriment of the other co-sharers. It has been held by the Courts below that co-owner is entitled for injunction if the construction diminishes the property’s value or utility or the actions are detrimental to the interest of other co-owners. 16 The pleadings and the submissions of the learned Counsel reveals that it is yet to be proved that what is the extent of share of the respective parties over the suit land. The defendant No. 3 has failed to plead and prove that what is his share and on which portion of the suit land, he intends to raise construction. The rival contentions of the parties are yet to be proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The revenue record prima facie shows that the suit land is joint amongst the co-sharers. The presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record unless the same is validly rebutted by cogent evidence. 17 Once it is established, that the land is joint between the parties, therefore, without ascertaining the shares of the co- sharers and in order to prejudice the rights of the other co- sharers, the defendant No.3/petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the construction since the disputed question of facts are 9 yet to be proved by leading oral evidence by the respective parties. The case is yet to be proved by the respective parties, therefore, the learned Courts below have rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/respondents has got prima facie case in their favour. In case, the defendant No.3/petitioner is permitted to raise the construction, in that event the rights of other co-sharers shall be affected and prejudiced. 18 The very case of the plaintiffs is that Sh. Gokul Chand out of his share of the suit land measuring 0-10-10 bighas has sold 10 biswas of the land whereas he remained owner of the suit land only to the extent of 10 biswansi is yet to be proved by leading independent evidence by the parties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since Gokul Chand remained only with the 10 biswansi of the land, therefore, he could not have sold over and above his share, which he was holding to the opposite side. 19 The presumption of truth is attached to the revenue records, which show that the parties are still joint amongst them. Therefore, in order to maintain balance and preserve the suit property, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion by passing the order of status quo in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.3. 10 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/S GARMENT CRAFT Vs. PRAKASH CHAND GOEL, (2022) 4 SCC 181, decided on 11.01.2024, has held that High Court while exercising Supervisory Jurisdiction will not act as a Court of First Appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence on facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse,1Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 11 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 21 The Courts below have rightly appreciated the points in controversy by taking into consideration the material on record and in view of the above mentioned findings, there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2025, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 12 Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge April_23rd 2026 (Nisha)