2025:HHC:33886 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 454 of 2015 Reserved on: 19.09.2025 Decided on: 07.10.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjeevan Kumar ......Appellant/Plaintiff Versus Bhupinder Sood and others .....Respondents/Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr.Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Satyen Vaidya, Judge This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Jawali, District Kangra H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 81-J/XIII/2012, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jawali, in Civil Suit No. 250/2002 has been affirmed. 2. The appellant herein/plaintiff, filed Civil Suit No. 250/2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? 2 2025:HHC:33886 Jawali, District Kangra, praying for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession. 3. The plaintiff had averred that he was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.16 min, Khatauni No. 36 min, Khasra No. 721 measuring 0-01-20 hectares in Mohal and Mauza Rey, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, and the defendants were owner in possession of adjoining land in Khasra No. 722. As per plaintiff, there was approximately 3 meters wide vacant land in between the shops constructed by the plaintiff and defendants in Khasra Nos. 721 and 722 respectively. The plaintiff alleged that out of 3 meters, 2 meters wide land fell in Khasra No. 721 and remaining 1 meter in Khasra No. 722. The allegation was that the defendants had forcibly tried to encroach upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 721. 4. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the allegations of plaintiff. It was submitted that the plaintiff had covered his entire land with construction and was wrongly claiming the right on the land of defendants. 5. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3 2025:HHC:33886 2. Whether the plaintiff in alternative is entitled for decree of possession by way of demolition of structure as alleged? OPP. 3. whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 5. Relief. All the issues except issue No. 4 were answered in negative and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 6. In first appeal also, the plaintiff has remained unsuccessful. Learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Jawali, District Kangra vide impugned judgment and decree has affirmed the findings and conclusions recorded by learned trial Court and has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. 7. This appeal was admitted on 04.12.2015 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings and law and also misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by Courts below are erroneous and, as such, the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable? 4 2025:HHC:33886 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. The ownership of plaintiff and defendants on the adjoining lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 721 and 722 respectively is not in dispute. The plaintiff has been claiming that the defendants have tried to encroach upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 721. Both the Courts have found the allegation of plaintiff to be unfounded. 10. On facts, learned trial Court found that the plaintiff had obtained the demarcation of the spot three times but had remained dis-satisfied every time. It was also held that the report submitted by the Local Commissioner appointed by learned trial Court had also belied the claim of the plaintiff. Though, the plaintiff had raised objections to the report of Local Commissioner, but the same were also dismissed. Notice of demarcation got carried out by the defendants and proved on record as Ext.DW-2/A was also taken. 11. Similarly, learned first Appellate Court placed reliance on the fact that though plaintiff had got demarcation conducted, but had challenged the same himself by filing 5 2025:HHC:33886 appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer under the provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. During the pendency of suit, the defendants had also got the land demarcated and by looking into the report Ext.DW-2/A, learned first Appellate Court observed that again no encroachment was found on the land comprised in Khasra No. 721. In addition, the report of the Local Commissioner having attained finality also weighed with learned Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff. 12. Having gone through the material on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff had averred that he had obtained the demarcation before filing of suit. It was also mentioned that the demarcation report so rendered had been challenged by him in appeal. It means that the plaintiff had filed the suit on assumptions without there being any real apprehension of encroachment. During the course of trial, learned trial Court had appointed a Local Commissioner on the asking of parties. The report of Local Commissioner also did not support the case of the plaintiff. The objections filed by the plaintiff were also rejected. Noticeably, the plaintiff had not 6 2025:HHC:33886 called the Local Commissioner as a witness to cross-examine him on material aspects of the report submitted by him. The Local Commissioner had conducted the demarcation in presence of the plaintiff and the statement of the plaintiff had also been recorded by the Local Commissioner regarding satisfaction as to the demarcation. 13. In the above background I have not found any illegality, much less perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. 14. The substantial question of law is decided against the plaintiff. 15. In result, the appeal is dismissed. Judgement and decree dated 21.02.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Jawali, in Civil Appeal No. 81-J/XIII/2012, is affirmed. 16. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s) if any. 7th October, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge