2025:HHC:38106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 75 of 2015 Date of decision: 12.11.2025. Munshi Ram deceased through LRs. ...Appellants Versus Jagjit Singh & another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): This Regular Second has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2011 RBT No. 74/13, whereby the decree dated 26.5.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 414 of 2003, has been affirmed. 2. The suit of the appellant herein has been dismissed by both the Courts. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. The parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status, as they held before the original Court. 4. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, seeking declaration to the effect that he was absolute owner in possession of land comprised in khewat No. 105, khatauni Nos. 110 and 111, khasra Nos. 202 and 203 (old) and khasra Nos. 4 and 4/1 (new), measuring 0-02-69 hactares in Tikka Bhadera, Mauza Badohag, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur and the revenue entries reflecting the land comprised in khasra No. 4/1 as Gair Mumkin Rasta were wrong and liable to be corrected in view of the compromise decree dated 5.9.1993, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 38 of 1993. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought to restrain the defendants from creating any path, motorable or otherwise, through the suit land. 5. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was recorded as owner in possession of the land, as detailed hereinabove. The settlement in the area was conducted in the year 1999-2000 and the land comprised in old khasra Nos. 202 and 203 was shown as khasra No.4 in post -3- settlement records with further breakup as khasra No. 4 measuring 0-02-59 hectare and khasra No. 4/1, measuring 0-00-18 hectare. The land comprised in khasra No. 4/1 was described as Gair Mumkin Rasta in post settlement records and was allocated a separate khatauni bearing No. 111. 6. It was further the case of the plaintiff that he had earlier also filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 38 of 1993 against the defendants in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from creating any path through the land comprised in khasra Nos. 202 and 203 (old). The said suit was compromised on the statement of the plaintiff that he would provide passage to the defendants through the suit land to the extent of three feet in width from the nearest road head and the said passage would be used only by the defendants and their family members. 7. The plaintiff raised the grievance that the post settlement revenue entries in respect of khasra No. 4/1 were not in accordance with the compromise arrived at -4- between the parties. The plaintiff had never agreed to allow the path for use of general public through the suit land. In this background, the relief, as noticed above, was prayed by the plaintiff. 8. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. Objections as to maintainability, jurisdiction of Civil Court, estoppel, res-judicata, non- joinder of necessary parties and limitation etc. were raised. On merits, the defendants asserted their easmentary right over the suit land through khasra No. 4/1. It was submitted that the defendants were using the said passage to cultivate and plough the fields in khasra Nos. 5, 6, 7, 41 and 43. 9. Learned trial Court had framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the entries, appearing in the record of rights, showing the land of Khasra No. 4/1 as 'Gairmumkin Rasta' are wrong and liable to be corrected in view of the compromise arrived at in Civil Suit No. 33/93? OPP. -5- 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 10. Whether the defendants have acquired right of passage over the land of Khasra No. 4/1 by way of easement as alleged? 11. Relief.” 10. All issues except Issue No.4 were answered in negative and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the CPC has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur vide impugned judgment and decree, hence this appeal. 11. The instant appeal was admitted on 22.5.2015 on following substantial question of law:- -6- “Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings, misreading and misconstruction of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and the law, the findings recorded by both Courts below are erroneous and as such the judgment and decree impugned in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable?” 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 13. It is not in dispute that the land comprised in khasra No. 4/1 was shown as Shareaam Gair Mumkin Rasta in post settlement records of right. The plaintiff had taken exception to such an entry being not in conformity with the compromise arrived at between him and the defendants, in Civil Suit No. 38 of 1993. 14. The learned trial Court has specifically held that the plaintiff could not prove the change, in revenue entries, made during the settlement to have its basis in the compromise made between plaintiff and the defendants on 5.9.1993 in Civil Suit No. 38 of 1993 before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur. This finding has also been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. -7- 15. Having gone through the records, I have not found the aforesaid finding to be illegal or perverse. No evidence had been led by the plaintiff to prove that the revenue entries were changed during the settlement on the basis of compromise between the parties. That being so, the necessary corollary is that the settlement authorities in exercise of their jurisdiction had made changes according to the spot position. Such an inference is inevitable as the plaintiff had not raised any objection before the settlement authorities with respect to the changes made by them in revenue records pertaining to old khasra Nos. 202 and 203. 16. Thus, the relief claimed by the plaintiff has rightly been denied by both the Courts. I have not found any material to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the Courts. 17. The substantial question of law is decided against the plaintiff. 18. In result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil -8- Appeal No. 55 of 2011 RBT No. 74/13, whereby the decree dated 26.5.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 414 of 2003 is further affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared. Records be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 12th November, 2025. Judge (kck)