2025:HHC:35514 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.154/2022 Date of Decision: 27th October 2025. Ram Kali and others .....Appellants. Versus Ram Chand …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : None. For the Respondent : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The Appellants, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2021 passed by learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.8-S/13 of 2021 partly allowing the appeal of the defendant and modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 14.07.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Kasauli, District Solan H.P. in Civil Suit No. 162/1 of 2018/2012 titled as Ram Kali and others vs. Ram Chand to the extent that the defendant be permanently restrained from interfering in the residential premises which is in possession of the plaintiffs situated over land comprised in Khata No.3, Khatauni No.3, Khasra Kita-4, area measuring 1-11-13 bighas situated in Mauja Gummu, Pargana Dharath, Sub Tehsil Krishangarh, District Solan H.P. or dispossessing them from it except in accordance with law. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 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. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that Ms. Ram Kali, plaintiff No.1, is the legally wedded wife of Sh. Ram Chand, the defendant, and Sh. Gopinder Singh (plaintiff No.2), Ms. Rupa Devi (plaintiff No.3), and Champa Devi (plaintiff No.4) are their children. The defendant solemnized a second marriage in 1994 without the consent of plaintiff No.1 and thereafter lived with his second wife, with whom he also has children. 3. The plaintiffs reside in Village Gummu (Plach), away from the defendant, in the ancestral residential house which was given to them under a family settlement in 1993, built over land comprised in Khata No.3, Khatauni No.3, Khasra Nos.20, 25, 26, and 29, total area measuring 1-11-13 bighas. Additionally, a substantial area of land comprised in Khata No.2, Khatauni No.2, Khasra Kitta 20, measuring 71-17-19 bighas in the same village, is also in their cultivatory possession. The defendant did not contribute towards their maintenance, and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 were brought up and married by plaintiff No.1 with the help of income generated from this land. The defendant sent a legal notice to plaintiff No.2 requiring him to attend a Khangi Panchayat to settle family disputes, which the plaintiffs perceived as a move to evict them from the ancestral house and land without justification. Consequently, they filed a suit 3 for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from evicting them from the house and land and from alienating or transferring the said land. 4. The defendant contested the suit by raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, and estoppel. On merits, he denied the ancestral nature of the suit property, pleaded his exclusive ownership, stated that he is cultivating the land himself, and alleged that the suit was filed to grab his land. 5. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 03.04.2017:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land on the basis of family settlement as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether defendant is threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land, as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form, as alleged ? OPD 5. Whether their lies no cause of action and locus-standi in favour of plaintiffs to file the present suit, as alleged ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own acts and conduct, as alleged? OPD 7. Relief 6. After recording evidence and hearing arguments, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the house in question but not under a family settlement. It further held 4 that the defendant, as the Karta of the family, was entitled to alienate or transfer ancestral land under certain circumstances. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed, permanently restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land except in due course of law, vide judgment and decree dated 14th July, 2021. 7. The defendant appealed, contending before the First Appellate Court that the learned Trial Court, in Para No.17 of its judgment, recorded a finding regarding the plaintiffs' possession over the residential house only and made no such finding regarding their possession over the remaining land measuring around 71 bighas, yet decreed the suit with respect to the entire 'suit land'. The First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court was altered and modified, and the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed to the extent that the defendant was permanently restrained from interfering in the residential premises in their possession situated over land comprised in Khata No.3, Khatauni No.3, Khasra Kita-4, area measuring 1-11-13 bighas situated in MaujaGummu, Pargana Dharath, Sub Tehsil Krishangarh, District Solan, H.P. or dispossessing them from it except in accordance with law. The rest of the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the agricultural land comprised in Khata No.2, Khatauni No.2, Khasra Kita-20, area measuring 71-17-19 bighas situated in the 5 same mauja was dismissed. Against this decision of the First Appellate Court, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present second appeal. 8. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 9. Based upon the evidence led by the parties, the Court finds that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a family settlement concerning the suit land, as the jamabandi for the year 2007-08 contained no entry to this effect. However, the testimony of the defendant, Sh. Ram Chand (DW-1), establishes that the plaintiffs are in residence in the house situated on the suit land. His admission that he divided the agricultural land between plaintiff No. 2, Gopinder, and his son from his second marriage, Amit, is conclusive. This admission demonstrates that the plaintiffs are not in exclusive possession of the entire agricultural land, which forms the bulk of the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction over the agricultural land measuring 71-17-19 bighas. 10. In view of the above, the judgement of the First Appellate court modifying the judgement of the Trial court is upheld. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed and so 6 also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th October, 2025 (Tarun/T.B)