2025:HHC:19837 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.64/2023 Date of Decision: 25th June, 2025. Chuharu Ram .....Appellant Versus Dhani Devi (Deceased) through LRs. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2022, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharmashala, Camp at Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.12-B/XIII/2016, affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2016, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No.26/2013. 2. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal after the dismissal of the first appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendants,' as per their designation before the trial court in the impugned judgment. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, reveal that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he has 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:19837 become the owner of the share of Anant Ram in the land comprised in Khata No. 147, Khatauni No. 288, Khasra Nos. 107, 2436, Kita 2, measuring 00-10-40 hectares; Khata No. 148, Khatauni No. 299, Khasra Nos. 76, 786, 788, 862, 864, Kita 5, measuring 0-58-13 hectares; Khata No. 180, Khatauni Nos. 348 to 358, Khasra Nos. 207, 920, 966, 974, 1021, 94, 163, 171, 172, 176, 200, 206, 216, 821, 837, 841, 848, 852, 854, 904, 914, 924, 928, 931, 934, 951, 955, 969, 977, 95, 103, 162, 175, 177, 179, 180, 215, 826, 827, 840, 847, 851, 901, 12, 923, 930, 935, 954, 967, 968, 975, 98, 167, 173, 201, 214, 250, 834, 835, 843, 927, 970, 99, 165, 204, 205, 213, 222, 223, 224, 249, 833, 844, 933, 971, 92, 97, 164, 166, 202, 203, 212, 219, 221, 248, 831, 838, 845, 956, 829, 897, 909, 929, 978, 93, 100, 168, 169, 170, 174, 211, 217, 225, 226, 247/1, 830, 832, 836, 839, 842, 846, 849, 850, 900, 926, 932, 950, 972, 976, 981, 828, 921, 973, 853, Kitas 125, measuring 02-48-47 hectares; and Khata No. 188, Khatauni Nos. 371 to 373, Khasra Nos. 262, 309, 298, Kita 3, measuring 00-04-98 hectares, situated at Mohal Mahadev, Mouza Ghaneta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'), claiming to have been in possession of the same since 1965 openly, hostilely, and continuously to the knowledge of the defendants. The plaintiff also sought correction of revenue entries and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the land, raising 3 2025:HHC:19837 constructions, or dispossessing him, and in the alternative, a mandatory injunction in case the defendants succeeded in their alleged unlawful designs. 3. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that Anant Ram, son of Bhagat Ram, was his brother, and Anant Ram's share in the suit land was mutated in favor of his legal representatives, the defendants, on 03.03.2011 vide Mutation No. 996. It is averred that Anant Ram had executed a Will in favor of the plaintiff on 03.03.1990, but the same was declared null and void by the court on technical grounds. The plaintiff claims that Anant Ram had handed over possession of his share in the suit land to him in 1965. 4. The plaintiff further asserts that he had purchased land from Sh. Inder, son of Umda, resident of Mahadev, Mouza Ghaneta, Palampur, in 1965 in his own name as well as in the name of Anant Ram, and the entire sale consideration was paid by him, which is why Anant Ram had handed over possession of his share to him. The plaintiff contends that he has been in continuous possession of the suit land since 1965. It is also pleaded that Anant Ram had bequeathed his share to the plaintiff in a sound state of mind and that the revenue entries in favor of the defendants are merely paper entries. The plaintiff alleges that in the first week of 2012, the defendants began interfering with his possession, threatening to raise constructions and forcibly dispossess him. 4 2025:HHC:19837 5. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, and res judicata. They contended that the previous litigation between the parties was decided in their favor by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, and the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh had upheld the same, rendering the present suit barred by res judicata. On merits, the defendants admitted that the Will dated 03.03.1990 was declared null and void by the Hon'ble High Court but denied that Anant Ram had ever handed over possession of his share to the plaintiff. They asserted that they have been in possession of the suit land to the extent of their share since the death of Anant Ram and that the dispute between the parties had already been adjudicated up to the High Court level. They sought dismissal of the suit. 6. The plaintiff filed a replication, denying and controverting the contents of the written statement while reiterating the averments made in the plaint. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues on 10.09.2013: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that he has become the owner of the suit land, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit due to his own act and conduct? OPD. 5 2025:HHC:19837 5. Whether the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 7. Relief. 7. After recording evidence and hearing the arguments, the learned trial court declined the relief of mandatory injunction and held that the claim of the Plaintiff that he had become owner by adverse possession was not maintainable. 8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, preferred an appeal before the first appellate court, contending that the impugned judgment was contrary to law, facts, and principles of natural justice and was based on conjectures and surmises. It was argued that the plaintiff had adduced trustworthy evidence in support of Issue No. 1, but the trial court failed to consider the compromise dated 30.05.2015 (Ext. PW-2/A) and erroneously relied upon the Jamabandi entries (Ext. PW-1/A to PW-4), despite the plaintiff’s specific plea that the revenue record was incorrect and required correction. The plaintiff further submitted that the trial court overlooked the admissions made by defendant No. 1, Smt. Dhani Devi, in Ext. DW-1, as well as the admissions of defendant No. 3, Kalasha Devi, and the testimony of PW-2, Krishan Lal, who corroborated the plaintiff’s case. It was asserted that the previous litigation did not operate as res judicata, as the plaintiff had been in continuous possession of 6 2025:HHC:19837 the suit land, a fact admitted by defendant No. 1 in the compromise (Ext. PW-2/A). 9. Additionally, it was contended that the trial court erred in relying upon irrelevant legal precedents while deciding Issue No. 1, leading to an incorrect finding. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the first appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and decree the suit in its entirety. However, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the trial court. Therefore, the present second appeal 10. Heard counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgments. 11. The present second appeal arises from a protracted legal dispute over ownership of the suit land. The litigation history reveals that the defendants initially challenged a Will executed by defendant No. 1's late husband in favor of the plaintiff. While the trial court initially upheld the Will in 1997, this decision was reversed by the District Court in 1999 (Ext. D- 1) and subsequently affirmed by the High Court in 2010 (Ext. D-3), declaring the Will null and void and confirming the defendants as lawful owners. 12. Undeterred, the plaintiff filed the present suit in 2013, claiming ownership through adverse possession since 1965. However, this claim is contradicted by his own admission in the plaint that possession was permissibly given by the deceased in 1965, thereby negating any hostile character required for 7 2025:HHC:19837 adverse possession. The plaintiff's alternative claim of having solely financed the 1965 joint purchase remains unsupported by evidence. 13. The plaintiff's reliance on a 2015 compromise (Ext. PW- 2/A) with defendant No. 1 is unavailing, as it neither binds other legal heirs nor demonstrates adverse possession. Moreover, the defendants' pending partition proceedings further undermine the plaintiff's assertions. 14. Given the conclusive findings in prior litigation, the plaintiff's admissions, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession, the concurrent decisions of the courts below warrant no interference. 15. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 25th June, 2025 (T.B/Gaurav Rawat)