1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.295 of 2025 Date of Decision : 05.01.2026 Amar Chand …… Appellant Versus Bishan Dass (deceased) through his legal heirs and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal (Registration) No.803 of 2013 titled Amar Chand vs. Bishan Dass (deceased) through legal heirs and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Nurpur, Distgrict Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, have been affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court. 3. The facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant had initially filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court, seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, and that the revenue entries in favour of the defendants-respondents are null and void, along with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 02.09.1981, took possession as owner, and has been in continuous cultivation since then. The defendants, having obtained the land through LR-V proceedings from the tenant Kunju, contested the suit, asserting that the sale deed was declared invalid by the High Court vide judgment passed in RSA No. 219/1986 decided on 24.11.1993, that possession was never delivered to the plaintiff, and that the legal heirs of Kunju subsequently acquired ownership rights. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court, on 14.12.2005: “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration to the effect that he is in cultivating possession of the suit land as owner and entry showing the defendants as owner of the suit land is null and void, as alleged?- OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?- OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?-OPD 3 4. Whether the sale deed, dated 02.09.1981, has been held to be in-valid by the Hon’ble High Court of Shimla, in RSA No. 219/86, decided on 24.11.1993, as alleged?-OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?-OPD 6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?-OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?-OPD. 8. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected U/O 7 Rule 11 of CPC, as alleged?...OPD 9. Relief?.” 5. The Trial Court after recording evidence dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2013, primarily holding that the High Court's judgment had attained finality and the sale deed was invalid. 6. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal. In the first appeal, the appellant contended that the Trial Court misread the evidence, failed to appreciate that his possession since the settlement was admitted by the original defendant in earlier proceedings (Civil Suit No. 393/1994), and erroneously imposed costs. The appellant argued that his evidence of long-standing cultivation established his claim of adverse possession and that the revenue entries in the defendants' favour were incorrect. The respondents supported the Trial Court's decree, maintaining that the plaintiff's title claim was conclusively negated by the High Court's earlier judgment which held the sale deed invalid, and that possession had reverted to the legal heirs of the tenant. 7. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties, however, dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial 4 Court. It is against this dismissal of the first appeal that the plaintiff has now filed the present second appeal. 8. Heard Counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments. 9. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, supporting his plaint and asserting ownership based on the sale deed dated 02.09.1981, while admitting in cross-examination to the earlier tenancy of Kunju and the litigation wherein the High Court decided in Kunju's favour. The defendants examined Jagdish Chand as DW-1, who supported the written statement and admitted that his father had executed the registered sale deed and delivered possession to the plaintiff. 10. A careful analysis of the pleadings and evidence reveals the core dispute that the plaintiff bases his claim of ownership on the registered sale deed (Ex. PW-4/A), while the defendants contend that this very document was declared invalid by the High Court vide judgment passed in RSA No. 219/1986, a copy of which is (Ex. D-2). 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The suit land was originally under the tenancy of Kunju, as per the Jamabandi for the year, 1976-77 (Ex. P-2). A portion was resumed by the defendants-landowners through LR-V proceedings. The subsequent revenue entries reflected in documents like the Misal-Hakiyat (Ex. P-3) and Jamabandi (Ex. P-4), showed the plaintiff in possession of the newly carved-out Khasra numbers that constitute the suit land. However, the validity of the plaintiff's root of title, the sale deed (Ex. PW-4/A), has been conclusively 5 adjudicated. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court passed in RSA No. 219/1986 (Ex. D-2), arising from a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff against Kunju, is pivotal. The High Court expressly held the sale deed dated 02.09.1981 to be invalid, having been executed before the lapse of the statutory one-year period from the date of possession in the resumption proceedings. It further held that the plaintiff had failed to establish his possession, noting that the resumption proceedings were not complete as per law and that the tenant-Kunju continued in possession in his own right. This judgment has attained finality and operates as res judicata on the issue of the plaintiff's title derived from that sale deed. 12. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot be held to be the owner in possession based on a sale deed declared invalid. His alternate plea of ownership by adverse possession is fundamentally flawed and unsupported by the record. A claim of adverse possession requires a clear admission of the true owner's title, which the plaintiff has never made, instead, he has consistently denied the defendants' title. The pleadings, from the body of the plaint to the prayer, do not substantively plead adverse possession, and no evidence was led to prove the essential ingredients of hostile, open, continuous, and exclusive possession for the statutory period. Crucially, the High Court's finding in judgment passed in RSA No. 219/1986 (Ex. D-2) that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and that Kunju remained in possession completely negates any foundation for a claim of adverse possession. The plaintiff's reliance on the judgment passed in Civil Suit No. 393/1994 (Ex. 6 P-1) is misplaced as that Civil Suit did not involve Kunju, the party held to be in actual possession by the High Court, and thus cannot override the specific findings in the judgment passed in RSA No. 219/1986 (Ex. D-2). 13. Furthermore, the suit suffers from a fatal defect of non- joinder of necessary parties. The High Court's judgment established that Kunju, and subsequently his legal heirs, were in possession of the suit land. The defendants specifically pleaded this in their written statement. The legal heirs of Kunju, being persons in whose absence no effective decree regarding possession and title could be passed, were necessary parties to the present suit. Their non-impleadment is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. Regarding the costs of 10,000/- ₹ imposed by the Trial Court, given the history of litigation where the plaintiff's claim was previously dismissed up to the High Court and he subsequently filed the present suit asserting rights based on an invalidated document, the imposition of lump sum costs cannot be said to be impermissible or excessive. In light of the foregoing, the findings of the First Appellate Court, which affirmed the Trial Court's decree, are sustained. The plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership or possession over the suit land. The impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit are therefore upheld. 14. In view of the aforesaid, no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 7 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) January 05, 2026 (KS) Judge