IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.76/2023 Date of Decision: 21st July, 2025. Abdullah and another .....Appellants. Versus Chuni Lal …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kapoor, Advocate, vice Mr. Nimish 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 13.01.2023 passed by Learned District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 46/2022 affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Chamba, in Civil Suit No 400 of 2016. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same way as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree for possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 788/1, measuring 00-18-10 bighas, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 situated at Mauza Baror, Pargna Gudial, Tehsil and District Chamba (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). He pleaded that he is the owner in possession of the land comprising Khata No. 171, Khatauni No. 200 min, Khasra No. 788, measuring 04- 05-00 bighas, and that the defendants, being strangers with no right, title, or interest, forcibly took possession of a portion of the suit land in the last week of November 2014. The plaintiff further alleged that upon demarcation conducted through the revenue agency on 28.05.2016, it was found that the defendants had encroached upon an area of 00-18-10 bighas, depicted as Khasra No. 788/1. Despite requests made in July 2016, the defendants refused to vacate the encroached portion, leading the plaintiff to file the suit for possession. 4. The defendants contested the suit by raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel, cause of action, and limitation. On merits, they asserted that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land around 35-36 years ago from one Sh. Budhi, while defendant No. 2's father was already in possession at that time. They claimed that defendant No. 2's father had been in possession for 55 years, and after his demise, defendant No. 2 continued in possession. The defendants further contended that they had made substantial investments to render the land cultivable and that the suit was 3 barred by limitation. They denied the plaintiff's allegations regarding demarcation and sought dismissal of the suit. 5. The plaintiff, in replication, reaffirmed the contents of the plaint and denied the defendants' claims. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 16.05.2018: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 788/1, measuring 00- 18-10 bighas, in tatima annexed with the demarcation conducted on 28.05.2016 out of total land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 171/200 min Khasra No. 788 measuring 04-05-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Baror, Pargna Gudial, Tehsil and District Chamba-(HP). OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from this Court? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Relief. 6. The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined Rashmi as PW1, Mahesh Nath as PW2, Subhash Chand as PW3, and himself as PW4. The affidavit in examination-in-chief of Sh. Ravan (PW5) was filed, but since he was not produced for cross-examination, his testimony was disregarded. The plaintiff also placed on record the demarcation report (Ex. PW2/A), statement of Chuni Lal (Ex. PW2/B), joint statement of persons 4 present at the time of demarcation (Ex. PW2/C), Tatima (Ex. PW2/D), and jamabandi (Ex. PW4/B). 7. In rebuttal, the defendants examined defendant No. 2 as DW1 and Ali Mohammad as DW2. They also tendered in evidence copy of mutation (Ex. D1 and Ex. D2) and jamabandis (Ex. D3 to Ex. D7). 8. Upon appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit, answering issue No. 1 in the affirmative and issues No. 2 to 6 in the negative. 9. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the defendants preferred a first appeal challenging the findings of the courts below. The appellants contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, particularly their long- standing possession of the suit land for over 55 years, while the plaintiff failed to prove dispossession in 2014. They argued that the suit was decreed solely on the basis of an illegal demarcation report, conducted without their participation and in violation of mandatory provisions. They further asserted that the tatima and demarcation report were not confirmed by the competent authority and that the Trial Court ignored their plea of adverse possession based on prolonged and uninterrupted possession since the time of their ancestors. The First Appellate 5 Court dismissed the appeal, therefore, the present second appeal was preferred by the appellants. 10. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 11. In the present case, the plaintiff’s claim for possession of the suit land, specifically Khasra No. 788/1, is founded on his ownership, as evidenced by the revenue records, particularly the jamabandi for the year 2013-2014 (Ex. PW4/B). The defendants, in their written statement, admitted the plaintiff’s ownership by acknowledging that he had purchased the land from Budhi Prakash around 35-36 years ago. Their resistance to the suit was based solely on long possession, without raising any plea of adverse possession, much less establishing its essential elements. Mere possession, however prolonged, does not automatically translate into adverse possession unless accompanied by the necessary animus to hold the property hostile to the true owner. 12. The plaintiff relied on the demarcation report (Ex. PW2/A) and the accompanying tatima (Ex. PW2/D) to prove the defendants’ encroachment. The demarcation was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Chapter 10 of the H.P. Land Records Manual, 1992, as amended. The demarcating officer (PW2) followed the mandatory steps: 6 identifying fixed points from the village map (musavi), recording statements, and ensuring proper measurement. The defendants’ absence during part of the proceedings does not vitiate the demarcation, as they were initially present and failed to substantiate any procedural irregularities during cross- examination. Their vague suggestions to PW2, without pinpointing specific flaws, further weaken their challenge to the demarcation report. 13. The defendants’ contention that their possession spans over 55 years is factually unsupported by revenue entries. Their own witness, DW1, inadvertently referred to possession of a different plot (Khasra No. 789), not the suit land. Even assuming long possession, the suit, being based on title, is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The burden to prove adverse possession lay on the defendants, which they failed to discharge. In the absence of such a plea, the plaintiff’s title remains unchallenged, and his suit cannot be barred by limitation. Judicial precedents whereupon reliance has been placed by the Courts below including Saroop Singh vs. Banto and others 2005 (8) SCC 330 affirm that a title holder’s cause of action commences from the date the defendants possession become adverse in terms of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 7 14. In light of the above, the plaintiff has conclusively established his ownership and the defendants’ encroachment over Khasra No. 788/1. The demarcation report, conducted lawfully, corroborates the extent of encroachment (00-18-10 bighas). The defendants’ objections to the demarcation and their claim of long possession lack merit, both factually and legally. Consequently, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit for possession, and the first Appellate Court correctly upheld the judgment. 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 appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 21st July, 2025 (Tarun/T.B)