! ( 2025:HHC:44774 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.283/2025 Date of Decision: 20.12.2025 Manmohan Singh .....Appellant Versus Megnath …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Circuit Court, Camp at Amb, District Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 47/2023 titled as Manmohan Singh vs. Megnath, whereby the learned Additional District Judge-1, Circuit Court Camp at Amb, District Una, H.P. has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants by upholding the judgment and decree dated 1.2.2023 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb District Una H.P. in Civil Suit No. 256-I-09 titled as Meghnath vs. Manmohan whereby the learned Civil Judge had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondent. 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. 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree for possession of the area marked by letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, as shown in his site plan, by way of demolishing the construction shown in red colour, over the land measuring 0-03-01 hectares in Khasra No. 2889 and 0-08-00 hectares in Khasra No. 2888, bearing Khewat No. 507/469, Khatoni No. 871 ( in short suit land) as per the Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2006-07, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising further construction, changing the nature, or taking forcible possession of the suit land. The plaintiff's case was that he is the owner of the suit land and that the defendants, having no right, title, or interest, raised forcible construction in the year 2004 while he was abroad. It was pleaded that upon his return, the defendants entered into compromises dated 10.11.2005 and 06.03.2006, undertaking to remove the construction within three years, but failed to do so. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's ownership and asserting that defendant No. 1 constructed a house on the suit land in August 1989 with his own funds and with the plaintiff's consent. 4. They claimed that the plaintiff had become dishonest, that the compromises were obtained under police pressure and were fictitious, and alternatively, that defendant No. 1 had become 3 the owner by adverse possession or as an irrevocable licensee. The learned Trial Court framed the following six issues on 6.9.2011:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession over the suit land i.e. area marked by letters A B C D E F G H I as shown in the site plan, as prayed for? OPP; (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP; (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD; (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD; (5) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD; (6) Relief. 5. Upon consideration, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred a first appeal, contending that the trial court's judgment was against law and facts, violated natural justice, and failed to appreciate the evidence on record. Specifically, it was urged that the impugned judgment was illegal, contradictory, and against the evidence; that the trial court failed to appreciate the plaintiff's cross-examination where he allegedly admitted the defence version; that the court erred in relying upon the compromise Ext. PW-2/A, which was not duly proved; that it ignored material contradictions and decided the case on conjectures; and that the site plan Ext. PW-1/A was not properly proved and the defendant's evidence was not considered. 4 The first appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, the defendants have filed the present second appeal. 6. Heard Counsels for the appellant and perused the impugned judgements. 7. The core dispute in the present suit is whether the defendant encroached upon the area marked A to I on the suit land owned by the plaintiff. In order to prove the same plaintiff examined three witnesses. PW-1 Dinesh Kumar, draftsman, proved the site plan Ex.PW1/A. PW-2 Davinder Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, proved the compromise Ex.PW2/A. PW-3, the plaintiff Meghnath, supported his case through his affidavit Ex.PW3/A. The plaintiff also placed on record Ex.P-1, the Jamabandi for the year 2006-07. In rebuttal, the defendant stepped into the witness box as DW-1 & examined one Sh. Tilak Raj as DW-2 and tendered their affidavits Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW2/A respectively. The defendant did not lead any documentary evidence. 8. A perusal of Ex.P-1 Jamabandi establishes the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the suit land. The compromise Ex.PW2/A further indicates an agreement wherein the defendant undertook to vacate the suit land. The defendant, in his pleadings, admitted the sale deed in the plaintiff's name and his own possession over a part of the suit land, while raising defences of contribution to the purchase price, adverse possession, and being a 5 licensee. These defences implicitly acknowledge the plaintiff's ownership, shifting the onus onto the defendant to substantiate them. 9. The plea of adverse possession is rebutted by the defendant's own assertion that his possession commenced with the plaintiff's consent. Furthermore, the ongoing dispute since 2005 negates the requisite continuity for a claim of adverse possession. The defendant's defence that the construction was raised in 1989 with the plaintiff's consent lacks cogent and reliable evidence. The allegation that the compromises were obtained under police coercion or on blank papers is also untenable, as no evidence was adduced to prove this plea, nor was any complaint ever lodged. 10. The site plan Ex.PW1/A stands duly proved by the plaintiff, and the defendant led no evidence to rebut it. Therefore, the depiction of the encroached portion in Ex.PW1/A is accepted. Consequently, it is held that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit land and that the area marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, has been illegally encroached upon by the defendant without any right, title, interest, or consent. The plaintiff is thus entitled to possession of the said encroached area. Given this encroachment, there exists a reasonable apprehension that the defendant may also interfere with the remaining portion of the suit land, entitling the plaintiff to the consequential relief of permanent injunction. 6 11. 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, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 20th December, 2025 (tarun/T.B)