( 2025:HHC:37150 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 13 of 2015. Decided on : 6 th November, 2025. Krishan Lal ...Appellant. Versus Devi Ram ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shristi Negi, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 26-S/13 of 2012/06/11 whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No.239/1 OF 2002 has been affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:37150 ) 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before the original Court. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 20/31, measuring 0-17 biswa, Khasra No. 505 situated in Village Nandpur, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. It was alleged that the defendant encroached upon the above mentioned land comprised in Khasra No.505 to the extent of 2 ½ feet in width and 81 feet in length. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering with the rest of the land comprised in Khasra No.505 was also claimed. 4. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. The allegation of encroachment on Khasra No. 505 was completely denied. The defendant claimed himself to be owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No.506 which was adjoining to the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 505. 5. The defendant in his written statement had taken a specific plea that the plaintiff earlier also filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant in which defendant had made a statement before the Court that 3 ( 2025:HHC:37150 ) he would not interfere in the land comprised in Khasra No.505. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the defendant has encroached upon area of 2 ½ ft. in width and 81 ft. in length in Khasra No. 505?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts, if so, its effect?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit due to his act, conduct and acquiescence?OPD. 7. Relief. 8. All the issues were answered in negative and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The first 4 ( 2025:HHC:37150 ) appeal preferred by the plaintiff has also been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal. 9. The appeal was admitted on 09.01.2015 on the following substantial question of law: - “1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are result of complete mis-reading, mis-interpretation of the evidence and material placed on record and against the settled position of law?” 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 11. Indisputably, both the parties had placed reliance on demarcation reports obtained by them from the Revenue Officers, by getting their respective lands demarcated. The plaintiff had placed reliance on demarcation report dated 30.11.2003, Ex. P-1, whereas the defendant had relied upon demarcation report dated 26.11.2002, Ex. D-1. The demarcating officers, who had conducted the demarcations Ex. P-1 and Ex. D-1 were examined as witnesses by the respective parties. 12. Learned trial Court found the demarcation report Ex. D-1 as more plausible and convincing than the demarcation report Ex.P-1 primarily on the ground that the 5 ( 2025:HHC:37150 ) plaintiff had made a statement as to the correctness of the demarcation report Ex. D-1, as it was conducted on spot. 13. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence has not only affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court but has provided further detailed reasons for ignoring the demarcation report Ex. P-1. Learned First Appellate Court has taken into consideration the fact that while conducting demarcation Ex.D-1, the demarcating officer measured the dimensions of both the disputed fields i.e. Khasra No.505 and 506. He had taken assistance of Musabi to carry demarcation in terms of instruction issued by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Himachal Pradesh. On the other hand, demarcation report EX.P-1 has not been found to be convincing on the ground that the demarcation report was without Musabi and in the absence of the basic document, veracity of findings recorded by the demarcating officer could not be ascertained. 14. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiff would contend that the demarcation report Ex. D-1 could also not be used for assistance by the Court as the demarcating officer had measured only one of the disputed field i.e. Khasra No. 506 and without measurement of the other field i.e. Khasra No.505 the extent 6 ( 2025:HHC:37150 ) of encroachment, if any, could not be ascertained. The argument so raised deserves rejection for the reasons that the demarcation report Ex. D-1 clearly spells out the mode and manner in which the measurements were carried by the demarcating officer on spot. It includes specific reference to the measurement of different sides of fields comprised in Khasra No.505 also. There is nothing in the cross- examination of DW-2 (demarcating officer) to suggest that the findings recorded by him in the demarcation report Ex. D- 1 were not in consonance with the spot position. 15. Thus, both the Courts have concurrently found on facts the case of the plaintiff, not proved. Having considered the reasons assigned by both the Courts, I am of the view that no interference is required as no illegality or perversity has been found. The findings recorded by both the Courts are duly borne from the records. Consequently, the substantial question of law as noted above is decided against the plaintiff. 16. In result, I find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree is affirmed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. 17. No order as to the costs. 7 ( 2025:HHC:37150 ) 18. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 19. Records be sent back. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 6th November, 2025. (jai)