1 ( 2025:HHC:28025 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.174 of 2025 Date of Decision : 19.08.2025 Rup Lal (deceased) through LRs. and others …… Appellants Versus Lashkari Ram (deceased) through LRs. and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Atul Jhingon, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellants, before the Trial Court by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 18/21/2018, affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2018 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi in Civil Suit No. 117/2010. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to in the same manner as they were referred to before the learned Trial Court and in the impugned judgment and decree, for the sake of convenience. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:28025 ) 3. The brief facts of the case are that the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 122/129, Khasra No. 508, measuring 0-50-64 hectares situated at Village Baroi, Illaqua Baira, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land") is recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the parties in the revenue record. The suit land was granted as "Nautor" to the plaintiff, who remained in possession thereof till today and has also constructed his house upon it. 4. The defendant, having separated from his father Bihari Lal, had never been in possession of the suit land. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is continuous and peaceful, resulting in the complete ouster of the defendant, who has consequently lost all rights and interest over the suit land. The defendant, taking undue advantage of wrong revenue entries, preferred an application for partition before the A.C. 1st Grade, Sarkaghat, wherein he admitted that the application was filed with a view to obtain possession of the suit land. 5. A clear-cut question of title was thus involved as the defendant was out of possession; however, this plea of the plaintiff was declined by the Collector, Sarkaghat, the Divisional Commissioner, and finally by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 12.01.2010, which is prima facie wrong, illegal, contrary to the provision of law, and not sustainable, giving rise to the present suit. 6. The defendant filed a written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is barred by limitation, is not properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction, that the plaintiff has no cause of action, and that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. On merits, all allegations in the plaint 3 ( 2025:HHC:28025 ) were denied, and it was submitted that though the defendant was living separately, he was serving his father, and since the sanction of the suit land as "Nautor", the parties have been in joint ownership and possession, with the defendant having constructed a cowshed soon after the grant and making the land fit for cultivation, and both parties are in actual possession till date; the revenue entries are correct, and the defendant rightly filed for partition, never having admitted the plaintiff's possession, and the plaintiff now seeks to forcibly take possession and is not entitled to the declaration prayed for, hence the suit deserves dismissal. 7. The plaintiff filed a replication reaffirming and reasserting his case and denying that of the defendant. On the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 24.11.2010: 1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the order passed by the financial commissioner on 12.01.2010 is illegal, null & void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged? OPD 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit, as alleged? OPD 6. Relief. 8. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants (legal heirs of deceased plaintiff) preferred a first appeal, arguing that the impugned judgment was based on a misappreciation of law and facts, particularly the 4 ( 2025:HHC:28025 ) respondent's admission that he sought partition to "obtain possession," which proved the plaintiff's exclusive, hostile possession. They contended the revenue records were incorrect, a substantive question of title remained undecided, and no evidence supported the respondent's claim of joint possession. They prayed for protection of their possession, a grant of lesser relief and that the appeal was within limitation. The first appeal too has been dismissed, therefore, the present second appeal. 9. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 10. The burden of proof lay squarely upon the appellants/plaintiffs who asserted a legal right to exclusive ownership and possession, to prove the existence of facts supporting this claim as mandated by Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. The initial onus was on the plaintiff to establish that the revenue entries showing joint ownership were wrong ab initio. No evidence meeting the high threshold to rebut the statutory presumption was presented before the Trial Court. 11. The plaintiff attempted to discharge this burden by filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC before the 1st Appellate Court, to adduce additional evidence, specifically a stay order from 1975 and a petition pertaining to Khasra No. 716/2, both concerning a different property and a different party, Mast Ram. Crucially, the application did not contain the actual order granting the Nautor exclusively to the plaintiff. Consequently, the application for additional evidence was rightly dismissed, leaving the revenue record, which jointly records both parties as owners in possession, as the primary evidence. 5 ( 2025:HHC:28025 ) 12. The legal presumption of truth attached to the revenue records, a principle firmly established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Partap Singh v. Shiv Ram (2020) 11 SCC 242 and correctly applied by the first appellate court, mandates that they can only be rebutted by evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability, demonstrating the entry was made fraudulently, surreptitiously, or without following the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the revenue entries must stand, confirming the plaintiff and the respondent as joint owners. 13. The plaintiff led oral evidence through himself and two other witnesses, but their testimony failed to prove the fact of an exclusive Nautor grant or his sole and continuous possession. 14. In law, the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be on behalf of all others unless a clear act of ouster or exclusion is proven. The plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession required him to definitively establish the date his possession became hostile, its nature, the respondent’s knowledge of it, and that it was open, continuous, and undisturbed. The appellant failed on all counts; he could not point to any document or specific evidence proving hostility or ouster. His possession, therefore, remained that of a co-sharer on behalf of the joint ownership. 15. The plaintiff’s reliance on the statement Ext. PY of the late respondent, Lashkari Ram, was misconceived. A perusal of the document reveals no admission of the plaintiff's exclusive cultivation; instead, the respondent denied that Rup Lal alone cultivated the land. While the respondent stated he filed for partition to "get possession," he qualified this by clarifying it was so both parties could get their respective shares, which is 6 ( 2025:HHC:28025 ) consistent with the right of a co-owner and does not amount to an admission of his own exclusion. 16. Furthermore, the plaintiff utterly failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to substantiate his claim that the suit land was solely granted to him as “Nautor,” as the revenue record Ext. P2 clearly shows both brothers as co-shares. Examining the claim from all possible angles, the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon him. The findings of the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, are based on a correct appreciation of the law and evidence, therefore, warrant no interference. 17. 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) August 19, 2025 (KS/T.B.) Judge