2025:HHC:22821 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.29/2025 Date of Decision: 15th July, 2025. Ramesh Chand .....Appellant Versus Rot Ram and Others. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, 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 15.01.2025 passed by Learned District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 28/2024 affirming the Judgement and Decree dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti, at Kullu, in Civil Suit No.32 of 2018. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff along with the defendants and other co-sharers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants threatened to construct an RCC building over the valuable portion of the suit land and beyond their share, having already started collecting construction material on the spot. In the first week of February 2018, the defendants 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:22821 allegedly threatened to interfere with the suit land and, despite the plaintiff’s objections, refused to desist from their illegal activities, leading to the filing of the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction. 4. The defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding the cause of action. They asserted that the suit land was no longer joint as it had been partitioned long ago through a family arrangement, and all parties were in settled possession of their respective portions. They claimed that the construction had been completed well before the filing of the suit, leaving sufficient vacant space, and alleged that the suit was filed mala fide to harass them. On merits, the defendants denied interfering with the plaintiff’s share or threatening to construct beyond their portion, seeking dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff did not file a replication despite opportunities, and counsel stated on 15.09.2018 that no replication would be filed. 5. The trial court framed the following issues on 12.03.2019: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP; 2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPP; 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD; 4. Whether the suit land is no more joint land and has been partitioned by way of family arrangement, if so, its effect? OPD. 5. Relief 3 2025:HHC:22821 6. After affording opportunities to both parties to lead evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, challenging the decree on the grounds that it was contrary to law, facts, and principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and based its decision solely on an alleged admission by the plaintiff, leading to an erroneous dismissal. It was argued that mere separate cultivation by co-sharers did not amount to lawful partition, and the nature of joint land remained unchanged unless legally partitioned. The appellant asserted that the defendants were unlawfully altering the suit land’s character by constructing on its valuable portion beyond their share, which the trial Court ignored. The appellant further claimed to have proved the defendants’ interference through his affidavit and documentary evidence, including the Jamabandi (Ext. PW-1/B), which the respondents failed to rebut. The trial Court was criticized for selectively relying on admissions in cross-examination while ignoring other material evidence. 7. Additionally, the appellant alleged that the trial Court disregarded favourable portions of DW-1’s cross-examination and mis-appreciated the evidence, leading to findings beyond the pleadings and record. The respondents’ own written statement allegedly contained admissions of interference, which 4 2025:HHC:22821 the trial Court overlooked. The appellant argued that issues No. 1 and 2 should have been decided in his favour based on the evidence, while the remaining issues ought to have been decided against the respondents. It was also contended that the trial Court failed to frame material issues, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, and ignored crucial aspects of the case, leading to incorrect conclusions. The judgment was further assailed for being based on conjectures and for introducing a case not pleaded or proved by the respondents. 8. The first Appellate Court, however, upheld the trial court’s decision, leading to the filing of the present second appeal. The appellant reiterates the grounds raised before the first Appellate Court and prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, seeking a decree of permanent injunction in his favour. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 10. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, thereby placing the burden upon him to prove unlawful interference by the defendants through cogent and reliable evidence. The plaintiff, Ramesh Chand, testified as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit (Ext. PW1/A), reiterating the plaint’s averments. Conversely, defendant No. 2, Hotam Ram, testified as DW-1 and tendered 5 2025:HHC:22821 his affidavit (Ext. DW1/A), reaffirming the written statement’s contentions. Upon cross-examination, the plaintiff’s admissions contradicted his pleadings, as he conceded that all co-sharers, including himself, were in separate possession of the suit land pursuant to a family arrangement and had constructed houses on their respective portions. This admission significantly undermined his claim of joint ownership and unpartitioned status, revealing material concealment from the court. 11. The legal principles governing co-sharers’ rights, as reiterated in judicial precedents, establish that a co-sharer cannot unilaterally restrain another from constructing on joint land unless such construction demonstrably prejudices his interests. The plaintiff failed to adduce evidence proving that the defendants’ construction would diminish the property’s value or utility or that it was detrimental to his share. Notably, he did not produce photographs or other documentary evidence to substantiate his allegations of unauthorized construction or material collection. The absence of corroborative testimony from other co-sharers further weakened his case. 12. In light of the plaintiff’s admissions and the lack of evidence supporting his claims, the trial court rightly concluded that he failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. The First Appellate Court affirmed this finding, noting that the plaintiff’s conduct, concealing the family arrangement and his 6 2025:HHC:22821 own construction disentitled him to equitable relief. The settled legal position, as articulated in Ashok Kapoor v. Murtu Devi (2016)1 Shimla Law Cases 207 and followed in subsequent rulings, mandates that mere construction by a co-sharer does not constitute ouster or prejudice unless proven otherwise. Here, the plaintiff neither demonstrated detriment nor justified the injunction sought. 13. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to establish his entitlement to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, and the existence of cause of action stands unproved. As regards to the contention that the suit land had been partitioned by way of family arrangement stands substantiated by the plaintiff's own admissions during cross-examination, thereby confirming the defendants' plea on this aspect. Therefore, the suit’s dismissal by the Courts below was thus legally sound, and no grounds for interference in this second appeal are made out. The impugned judgments warrant no disturbance. 14. 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 15th July, 2025 (T.B/Gaurav Rawat)