2025:HHC:26382 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.364 of 2015 Decided on: 05.08.2025 Pal Singh ….Appellant Versus Chaman Lal & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6. None for respondents No.7 to 11. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge(II) Camp at Rohru in Civil Appeal No.RBT-15-R/13 of 2014/2011, whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2010, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Rohru, Shimla in Civil Suit No.132-1 of 2009/2008, has been affirmed. 2. The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before learned trial Court. 2 2025:HHC:26382 3. The suit was filed for possession of the land bearing Khasra No.1423, measuring 00-01-08 hectares comprised in Khata Khatauni No.173 min/338, situated in revenue Chak, Sunda-Bonda, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. (for short, “the suit land”) on the basis of title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had claimed himself to be one of the co-owners of the suit land. As per the plaintiff, the defendants were holding the possession of the suit land without any right, title or interest and the house constructed on the suit land was also said to be unauthorizedly made. 4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, which was subsequently amended. It was claimed by the defendants that the suit land was sold by Prakash Chand (predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff) to Salig Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants) vide deed/agreement dated 11.04.1968. Simultaneously, a specific objection was taken in the written statement that the defendants had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. 5. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the vacant possession of the suit land after demolition of the structure over the same, as prayed for? OPP 3 2025:HHC:26382 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the defendants have become the owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? 9. Relief.” 6. Issue No.1 was answered in affirmative, whereas all other issues were answered in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed and decree for possession in respect of the suit land was passed. It was held that in case the defendants so desired, they could remove their house/structure from the suit land within two months, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to possession of the suit land along with structure. 4 2025:HHC:26382 7. The first appeal was filed by only one of the defendants i.e. Pal Singh, who is the appellant herein also. His appeal came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.12.2014. 8. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 08.10.2015 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on account of misreading, misappreciation and misconstruction of the law and facts as well as the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the judgment and decree under challenge in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable? 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 10. In regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court will not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless those are shown to be palpably illegal or perverse to the record. 11. In the instant case, both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff was title holder over the suit land. The claim of the defendants over the suit land on the basis of writing dated 11.04.1968 Ext. DW-1/C has been held to be not tenable for want of registration of the document under the Registration Act. The plea of adverse possession raised by the 5 2025:HHC:26382 defendants has also been disbelieved for want of necessary pleadings and proof. 12. The title of the plaintiff has been held to have been proved by placing reliance on jamabandi Ext. PW-1/B. The defendants had also placed on record ‘Misal Haquiat’ for the year 1996 Ext. DW-1/B, which also reflected the title of the plaintiff. Plaintiff Prakash Chand was shown as one of the co-owners of the suit land. 13. Though, in the aforesaid jamabandi, defendant Salig Ram had been shown to be in possession of suit land as ‘gair maurusi’, however, both the Courts have ignored the entry of defendants as ‘gair maurusi’ on the basis of plea raised by the defendants themselves that such entry was without any basis. 14. The document Ext. DW-1/C is a photocopy of writing dated 11.04.1968. The defendants claim it to be a deed of sale. The amount of consideration mentioned in the said document is Rs.600/-. therefore, the finding returned by both the Courts that in absence of registration of document under the Registration Act and for want of requisite stamp fee, it could not be considered to be a deed of sale. No fault can be found with such finding recorded by both the Courts. 6 2025:HHC:26382 15. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate, has urged that the document was executed in the year 1968 and the oral sale was permissible before 1971. The argument so raised cannot be sustained for the reason that it is not a case of oral sale. Admittedly, the defendants are relying upon a document. Even otherwise, what has been noticed by this Court is that in document Ext. DW-1/C, there was only a promise to pay the consideration of Rs.600/- as it refers to execution of promissory note. The defendants have neither pleaded nor proved that the consideration had actually passed from defendants to the plaintiff. 16. As regards the plea of adverse possession, it has also been rightly rejected, as there was neither any pleading nor requisite proof. Noticeably, the plea was not even taken in the alternative. This fact has also weighed with learned Courts below and again no interference is required with the impugned judgment and decree on this count also. 17. Except as above, no other ground has been raised on behalf of the appellant. 18. The findings returned by both the Courts are borne from the material placed and proved on record. 7 2025:HHC:26382 19. In light of what has been held above, the substantial question of law as noticed above, is answered in negative. 20. In result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any, with no order as to costs. 21. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge August 05, 2025 (vt)