( 2025:HHC:39249 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 152 of 2015 Date of decision: 20.11.2025 Amar Dei ...Appellant/Plaintiff. Versus Pratapa & Anr. ...Respondents/Defendants. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant/plaintiff : Mr. Arvind Sharma & Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents/defendants : Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2011, RBT No. 01/13, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 171/1999, has been affirmed. 2. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed by both the Courts concurrently. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2025:HHC:39249 ) 3. The appellant/plaintiff claimed herself to be a co- owner of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1002 and 1003, situated in Tika/Mahal Ghaloon, Tappa Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. (for short “the suit land”). She alleged that the respondents/defendants had cut a “Jammun tree” from the suit land without her consent. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the respondents/defendants had their land adjoining the suit land, but the suit land was situated at a higher elevation, about 6 feet above the land of the respondents/defendants. On these averments, a prayer was made for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the suit land. She also claimed damages to the tune of ₹8,000/- as the cost of the tree and further sought a direction for demarcation of the suit land. 4. Only defendant No. 2 contested the suit. In his written statement, the claim of the appellant/plaintiff was denied. It was alleged that the land of the respondents/defendants was comprised in Khasra No. 93 and that they had never encroached upon or interfered with the suit land in any manner. Reference was made to previous litigation between the parties in Civil Suit No. 172/1986, in which the issue raised by the appellant/plaintiff -3- ( 2025:HHC:39249 ) had already been decided. It was specifically averred that in the previous suit, a Local Commissioner had been appointed, who had demarcated the land, and on the basis of his report, the learned Court had found no encroachment by the respondents/defendants on the suit land. 5. Learned Trial Court had framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit land as depicted in the body of the plaint?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation as damages amounting to ₹8,000/- for cutting a big Jammun tree from the suit land as claimed?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for demarcation of the suit land by fixing boundary of the same as claimed?OPP. 4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filling the present suit by her act and conduct?OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 7. Whether he suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. 8. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under Section 35-A C.P.C?OPD. 9. Relief.” 6. All the issues were decided in negative and consequently, the suit was dismissed. -4- ( 2025:HHC:39249 ) 7. The appellant/plaintiff assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by taking recourse to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”). However, she remained unsuccessful, and the appeal filed by her has been dismissed by the judgment and decree impugned herein. 8. The instant appeal was admitted on 29.07.2015 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on account of misreading, misappreciation and misconstruction of the law and facts as well as the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the judgment and decree under challenge in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable?” 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 10. Record reveals that both the Courts have rendered concurrent finding of facts after detailed appreciation of the evidence. 11. Learned Trial Court observed that the suit land was earlier denoted by Khasra No. 92 and that there had been litigation between the parties on the same subject matter in Civil Suit No. 172/1986, decided by the learned Sub-Judge First Class (II), Hamirpur, on 27.03.1990. A copy of said judgment was -5- ( 2025:HHC:39249 ) considered by the learned Trial Court as Ex. D-1. The appellant/plaintiff in the instant suit was also one of the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 172/1986. It was also found that in the said suit, demarcation had been conducted and the allegation of encroachment on the suit land, i.e., old Khasra No. 92, had not been established. 12. The record also reveals that the appellant/plaintiff had filed an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land before the learned Trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2010. The appellant/plaintiff did not assail the said order. 13. The learned First Appellate Court concurred with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court and held that the appellant/plaintiff had not been able to establish the allegation of encroachment on the suit land or that the “Jammun tree” formed part of the suit land. The prayer made before the learned First Appellate Court for demarcation of the land was also rejected on the ground that no ambiguity had arisen for the Court in the appreciation of evidence; hence, the requirement for appointment of a Local Commissioner did not arise. -6- ( 2025:HHC:39249 ) 14. It is more than settled that concurrent findings of fact, if supported by the record, are not to be interfered with in a Regular Second Appeal. I have not found any material on record to suggest that the findings recorded by both the Courts are contrary to the evidence on record. No illegality or perversity can be attributed to the impugned judgment and decree. 15. Above all, the plaintiff has nowhere shown that she ever made any effort to get the suit land demarcated after the “Jammun tree” was allegedly cut by the respondents/defendants. Settlement of boundaries is within the domain of the Revenue Officer under Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, which provides a complete mechanism for dealing with issues relating to settlement of boundaries. Provisions of appeal and revision are also available to an aggrieved person. The order passed by the Revenue Officer in exercise of such jurisdiction is a quasi-judicial order. Had the appellant/plaintiff been serious in her cause, she could have submitted an application for settlement of boundaries. Since the appellant/plaintiff has not shown to have made any such effort, an adverse inference can be drawn against her. -7- ( 2025:HHC:39249 ) 16. Thus, the findings returned by both the Courts that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove her case cannot be faulted. The substantial question of law, as noticed above, is decided against the appellant/plaintiff. 17. In result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. 18. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by both the Courts is further affirmed. 19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 20. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 20th November, 2025 Judge (Shamsh Tabrez)