IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.57/2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Savitri Sharma .....Appellant. Versus Shankar Singh …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jagan Nath, 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 judgement and decree dated 17.07.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2023, affirming the judgement and decree dated 25.08.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No.52-I/2016. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to in the same manner as they were referred to before the learned trial Court and in the impugned judgment and decree, for the sake of convenience. The brief facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by Shankar Dass Sharma, the deceased husband of the plaintiff-appellant. He 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 executed a registered Will dated 04.02.2014 in favour of the plaintiff, though the mutation of the suit land had not been attested in her name at the time of the suit; however, the plaintiff was in possession of the land. The defendant-respondent was alleged to be a stranger with no right, title, or interest in the property. The plaintiff, who mostly resided at Khalini, Shimla, along with other family members, alleged that the defendant took undue advantage of her absence and began unlawfully interfering with her peaceful possession by forcibly digging the suit land on 13.06.2016, which gave rise to the cause of action. 3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, lack of cause of action, non-compliance with Section 80 of the CPC, the plaintiff's lack of locus standi, that the plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands, and that the suit was not supported by any site plan regarding construction. On merits, the defendant denied any intention to forcibly grab the land and stated that the Gram Panchayat Chanol intended to construct a Panchayat Ghar on land comprised in specific khasra numbers, pursuant to an order by the District Collector to transfer the land to the Panchayati Raj Department on the condition that it would revert to the Revenue Department if not used within two years. 4. The defendant claimed that on 03.06.2016, digging commenced for this purpose and prayed for the suit's dismissal. 3 From the pleadings, the trial court framed following issues on 29.12.2017: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? ...OPP. 2. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? ..OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? ...OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non compliance of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as alleged? ...OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? ...OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court, if so, its effects? ...OPD. 7. Relief. 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The injunction holding that no kind of encroachment was detected over the suit land in the demarcation that was held pursuant to FIR registered by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment decreeing against her, filed the first appeal challenging it on the grounds that it was against the law and facts of the case and based on hypothesis and conjecture. It was pleaded that the lower court erred in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove her title, arguing that certain vital documents could not be placed on 4 record due to the sudden demise of her husband. The dispute was characterized as concerning the construction of a Panchayat Bhawan on a road area adjacent to the appellant's land, and it was asserted that the defendant had concealed from the court that they had occupied a new space for construction different from the sanctioned area. The appellant contended that the new Panchayat Bhawan was being constructed on a road, that as per the jamabandi, was Abadi Deh land, and that the defendant had encroached upon 3-4 biswas of her property. It was further averred that the appellant, an old lady with limited means, would lose a vital part of her land, that the defendant was acting out of personal enmity, and that the authorities were misled by a wrong demarcation report to which the petitioner never consented. 6. The appellant argued that the old Panchayat Bhawan still existed near her land and that the defendant had clandestinely misrepresented the location for the new construction. She maintained that the defendant failed to place on record any document showing that the land being used for construction was the same as the sanctioned land, which was purportedly the site of the old building. The appellant also justified the lack of a notice under Section 80 CPC by citing the urgent nature of the dispute, fearing that delay would allow the defendant to succeed in his illegal motives. Finally, it was asserted that the appellant was in possession of all relevant documents which, if placed on record, 5 would substantiate her claim entirely. The respondent supported the findings of the lower court and prayed for the appeal's dismissal. Therefore, the present second appeal. 7. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 8. The plaintiff's case was fundamentally predicated on her claim of ownership through a registered Will and her possession of the suit land, which she alleged was under threat of encroachment by the defendant. The defendant, in contrast, asserted that his actions were conducted in an official capacity for the construction of a Panchayat Ghar on land duly transferred to the Panchayati Raj Department by the District Collector. 9. On the critical issue of establishing a prima facie case for the grant of injunction, it has been repeatedly held that injunction cannot be granted where there is no evidence to show as to when and where the defendant threatened to encroach upon the suit land. Mere bald allegation of plaintiff is not sufficient to grant injunction. In the present case the plaintiff's evidence is wholly insufficient for making a prima facie case for injunction as even though a copy of the registered Will was presented, the relevant revenue record, the jamabandi, indicated that mutation consequent to the bequest had not been attested in her name. More significantly, the plaintiff's own testimony proved detrimental to her case. Her cross-examination revealed a profound lack of knowledge regarding the specific details 6 of her property, including its khasra numbers, and her vacillating statements concerning the nature of the adjoining land, first calling it a road and then volunteering that it was government land irreparably damaged her credibility. Her allegation that the defendant, the Up-Pradhan, was a stranger intent on forcibly grabbing her land remained a bare assertion, entirely unsupported by any corroborative evidence, either oral or documentary. 10. Conversely, the defendant presented a cogent and official version of events. The demarcation report, Ex.DW4/C, prepared by the Naib Tehsildar in the presence of the plaintiff, her son, police officials, and independent village witnesses, was a document of considerable weight. It conclusively demonstrated that the construction activity for the Panchayat Ghar was undertaken on government land and that no encroachment upon the plaintiff's property was found. The plaintiff's belated and unsubstantiated claim that the witnesses' signatures on the joint statement, Ex.DW3/A, were procured forcibly, without her examining any of those witnesses to prove this allegation, was rightly rejected by the trial court. Her refusal to sign the demarcation report and her vague reference to an appeal for which no proof was offered further weakened her position. 11. Furthermore, the suit was legally unsustainable due to a fatal procedural flaw. The acts complained of were undertaken by the defendant in his official capacity as a Panchayat office-bearer. 7 Consequently, the mandate of Section 193 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, read with Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was attracted. These provisions act as a statutory bar to the institution of any suit against a government official or panchayat functionary for any act done in their official capacity without serving a prior two-month notice. The plaintiff's admitted failure to issue any such notice, coupled with her decision to sue the Up-Pradhan in his personal capacity while omitting to implead the Gram Panchayat or the State, constituted a fundamental error that went to the root of the matter and vitiated the suit itself. 12. In light of the foregoing, the finding of the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court are upheld. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving a clear legal right over the suit property or any tangible, imminent threat to her possession that would warrant the equitable relief of injunction. 13. 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 appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 9th September, 2025 (Gaurav/T.B)