2026:HHC:30106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP No. 8682 of 2019 & CMP No. 7681 of 2024 in RSA No. 433 of 2014 Reserved On   : 22.06.2026 Decided on    : 21.07.2026 Uploaded on   : 21.07.2026 Ashok Kumar … Appellant/applicant Versus Gurcharan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur & Ors. …Respondents/Non­applicants Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant/ : Mr. Sanjeev   Kuthiala,   Senior applicant Advocate, with Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents/ : Mr. Jagat  Paul, Advocate, for Non­applicants respondents No. 1 and 2. None   for   respondents   No.   3 and 4. Virender Singh, Judge CMP No. 8682/2019 & CMP No. 7681/2024 The order of mine shall dispose of the above noted   applications,   which   have   been   moved   by   the appellant, in the above titled Regular Second Appeal. 2. The   applicant­appellant   has   filed   the   Regular Second   Appeal,   against   the   judgment   and   decree   dated 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:30106 07.07.2014, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first   appellate   Court’),   in   Civil   Appeal   No.   100/2013 (413/13), titled as “Ashok Kumar Versus Smt. Gurcharan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur & Ors.”. 3. The learned first appellate Court has dismissed the   appeal   preferred   by   the   appellant,   which,   he   had preferred   against   the   judgment   and   decree   dated 29.08.2013, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 111 of 2010,   titled   as   “Ashok   Kumar   Versus   Smt.   Gurcharan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur & Ors.”. The said suit was filed by the appellant for declaration. 4. The appeal has been admitted for hearing, by this Court on 02.12.2014. 5. During   the   pendency   of   the   appeal,   the appellant­applicant   has   moved   the   application   bearing CMP No. 8682 of 2019. In the application, the following relief has been sought:­ “It   is,   therefore,   respectfully   prayed   that   the   present application may kindly be allowed and the respondents/ non­applicants 1 & 4 be directed to immediately handover the possession with respect to the construction so carried 3 2026:HHC:30106 out   which   is   not   in   consonance   with   any   permission/ sanction from any competent authority and whereby the respondents/non­applicants 1 & 4 have also encroached upon   the   setbacks   of   Hotel   Blue   Heaven   and   after directions to the respondent/non­applicants to handover the possession of the 1st Floor to the appellant/applicant, the appellant/applicant is ready and willing to deposit in the Hon’ble Court the actual cost of construction and the expenses so paid by the respondents/non­applicants 1 & 4 and will thereafter let out the premises in question after furnishing the same and deposit the usufruct and further the   appellant/applicant   be   allowed   to   restore   the setbacks as also the sewerage pipelines and other water lines to its original position regarding Hotel Blue Heaven, Manali. Any other or further orders which this Hon’ble Court   may   deem   fit   and   proper,   in   the   facts   and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant/applicant.” 6. The said relief has been sought on the ground that   during   the   pendency   of   the   lis,   respondent   No.   2 Roshan   Lal   @   Tashi   Norbu,   got   changed   the   revenue record,   depicting   the   settlement   deed,   purported   to   be executed   by   defendant   No.   1   Gurcharan   Kaur   @ Gurbachan Kaur, in favour of her son Paramjeet Singh and in this regard, mutation No. 550/2014, dated 08.08.2014 was also sanctioned. The said settlement is stated to be collusive   in   nature   and   hit   by   the   provisions   of   lis­ pendence. 7. Thereafter,   CMP   No.   16961   of   2014,   under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., was filed, which was allowed on 12.05.2015,   impleading   Paramjeet   Singh,   as   respondent No. 4, in the present case. 4 2026:HHC:30106 8. It is the further case of the appellant­applicant that on 25.07.2018, this Court has passed the following order:­ “CMP No. 2342 of 2017 On   hearing   learned   counsel   representing   the parties on both sides, irrespective of claims and counter­ claims   qua   ownership   of   the   property   in   dispute,   the anxiety of this Court is that the shop under construction on   1st  floor   of   the   building   being   situated   at   a   prime location in Manali bazar must be put to some use after its repair   either   by   the   non­applicants/appellants   or   the respondent/ applicant and usufruct likely to be derived by way of rent etc., shall continue to be deposited in the Registry of this Court during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel on both sides seek adjournment to have instructions in the matter. Allowed. List on 24.08.2018. CMP No. 4522 of 2017 Pleadings are complete. List along with the main appeal at the time of final hearing.” 9. Thereafter,   the   matter   was   taken   up   on 24.08.2018. On   that   day,   this   Court   had   passed   the following order: “CMP No. 2342 of 2017 Respondent   No.   4   is   though   present   in   person, however, appellant­plaintiff is absent. Perhaps may not be ready to do the needful in terms of the orders passed on the previous date. As   noticed   hereinabove,   consequent   upon   the orders passed on the previous date, respondent No. 4 is present in person. He is son of the owner of the property in   dispute   respondent   No.   1   Smt.   Gurcharan   Kaur   @ Gurbachan Kaur and also her special power of attorney. Copy   of  attorney   dated   26.11.2014   is on   record. Mr. Jagat Paul Advocate, learned counsel on instructions from him submits that the owner­respondent No. 1­applicant is ready   and   willing   to   put   in   use   the   shop(s)   under construction on first floor of the building after carrying out necessary repairs and furnishing the same. Her power of attorney   respondent   No.   4   Paramjit   Singh   has   also undertaken to deposit the usufruct likely to be derived by way of rent etc., by letting out the shops to someone else 5 2026:HHC:30106 or in the event of some business to be carried out by the respondent or any other family members, they shall keep on depositing the rent to be fixed by this Court as per the prevalent   market   rate   in   due   course   after   hering   the parties on both sides. Let   the   shops   are   constructed,   completed   and furnished by respondent No. 1, within six months from today,   of   course,   after   obtaining   the   sanction,   if   not already obtained, from Municipal Committee, Manali or Town and Country Planning Department. On completion of the work, the respondent­defendants shall move this Court   by   filing   an   application   indicating   therein   the purpose for which the shop(s) are proposed to be used and   also   the   evidence   qua   rent   of   similar   premises prevalent in the market at Manali Bazar so that further orders in the matter are passed. However, so far as this application is concerned, the same is finally disposed of in the above terms. Copy Dasti.” 10. It is the further grievance of the applicant that despite time granted by the Court, needful has not been done and thereafter, application for extension of time was filed, which was allowed on 19.07.2019, and the time was extended till 31.10.2019. On that day, it has also been ordered that in case, shop is not constructed and let out by 31.10.2019, the applicant­appellant would be entitled to construct and furnish the same, on the same terms and conditions,   as   find   mentioned   in   the   order   dated 24.08.2019. He   has   further   pleaded   that   he   has constructed a hotel, which is running under the name and style   of   Hotel   Blue   Heaven,   which   was   constructed   on Khasra Nos. 190, 191, 192, 194, 195 and 196, (Kita 6), 6 2026:HHC:30106 excluding   Khasra   No.   192. The   requisite   no   objection certificate and consent to operate, are also stated to have been   issued   by   HP   State   Pollution   Control   Board,   vide Annexure A­5. 11. According   to   the   appellant­applicant,   despite directions issued to respondents No. 1 and 4, they had not obtained any permission from Town and Country Planning Department, for the construction of first floor. They had made efforts for construction and to block the easementary rights of air and light of Hotel Blue Heaven. 12. In addition to this, other violations have also been highlighted. Thereafter, cognizance of the violation was taken by the Town & Country Planning Department, however,   respondents   No.   1   to   4   continued   with   their illegal construction and during illegal construction, they had   removed   the   belongings   of   the   appellant/applicant, consisting of his furniture etc. and blocked the sewerage and water pipes connection. 13. Not   only   this,   according   to   the   appellant­ applicant,   they   have   also   encroached   over   the   part   of Khasra No. 192, which is gair mumkin kitchen of Hotel Blue Heaven. 7 2026:HHC:30106 14. It is the further case of the appellant­applicant that   respondents   No.   1   and   4,   without   obtaining   the appropriate sanction, have raised the construction and in that process, they have encroached upon the setbacks of Hotel Blue Heaven. Not only this, they are also stated to have been encroached upon the part of Khasra No. 191 and included the same in their construction. The offer was also made to respondents No. 1 and 4 to hand over the area, under construction, on receipt of the value of the same, but, they have refused to do so. 15. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to direct respondents No. 1 and 4 to hand over the possession of the land, upon which, they have raised the construction. In addition to this, a prayer has also been made that the possession of the first floor be handed over to the appellant­applicant, for which, he is ready to deposit the actual cost of construction and the expenses. 16. This application has been contested by the non­ applicants by filing reply to the same, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections that the application is not maintainable. It is their further case that there was no dispute between the parties, prior to the exchange deed No. 8 2026:HHC:30106 44,   dated   31.12.2008. Even,   the   identity   of   the   suit property was not in dispute. 17. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in RSA No. 280 of 1997, according to which, respondent No. 2 Roshan Lal has become owner in possession of the suit property,   a   prayer   has   been   made   to   dismiss   the application. 18. In this regard, the non­applicants have relied upon   the   admission   made   in   the   plaint,   in   which,   the ownership of respondent No. 2, has been admitted and it has also been admitted that he was competent to enter into exchange deed No. 44, dated 31.12.2008. 19. It is their further case that the applicant has suppressed the material facts, from the judicial scrutiny of this   Court. According   to   them,   on   19.07.2019,   while deciding CMP No. 5339 of 2019, time was extended till October, 2019. According to them, when the construction work was started, the applicant has created obstacles in the construction, forcing the non­applicants to lodge the complaint   on   07.09.2019,   against   him   with   Dy. S.P. Manali. 9 2026:HHC:30106 20. On merits, the application has been contested on   the   ground   that   exchange   deed   No.   44,   dated 31.01.1999, was executed between respondent No. 1 and respondent   No.   2. They   have   denied   that   the   same   is collusive in nature. However, it has been admitted that respondent   No.   1   made   a   settlement   deed   in   favour   of respondent   No.   4   Paramjit   Singh. So   far   as   the proceedings, which have been conducted before this Court, as relied upon by the applicant, have not been disputed by them. 21. It has also been denied that while raising the construction,   the   non­applicants   have   blocked   the easementry right of air  and light of hotel Blue Heaven. Other allegations have also been denied. 22. Applicant filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents   No.   1   and   4,   denying   the   preliminary objections, as well as, the contents, by virtue of which the application has been contested. 23. Similarly,   appellant­applicant   Ashok   Kumar, has also filed CMP No. 7681 of 2024, with the following prayer:­ “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed and the 10 2026:HHC:30106 respondents/non­applicants 1 & 4 be directed to deposit the rent of the premises which should not be less thanRs. 16,00,000/­ per annum for each floor w.e.f. March, 2019, till the date of deposit and on failure to do so, the said premises   be   sealed   and   locked   and   the   recovery   be ordered   to   be   made   from   the   property   of   the   said respondents/non­applicants   1   and   4. Any   other   or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant/applicant.” 24. The   said   application   has   been   filed   on   the ground that he had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land and structure to the extent of 4 x 40 ft. at Manali, District Kullu, H.P., comprised   in   Khasra   No.   698   (old),   corresponding   to Khasra Nos. 190 to 192, 194 to 196 (Kita 6) and during the pendency of the case, non­applicant No. 2 with malafide intent and motive and in collusion with non­applicant No. 1, has made changes in the revenue record and thereafter, respondent/non­applicant   No.   1   Smt.   Gurcharan   Kaur made a settlement deed with one Paramjeet Singh, son of Jasbir   Singh. Thereafter,   mutation   No.   550/2014   was sanctioned and later on, said Paramjeet Singh has been impleaded as respondent No. 4, in the present case. 25. It is his further case that during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, orders dated 25.07.2018, was passed in CMP No. 2342 of 2017, (which has been 11 2026:HHC:30106 reproduced,   hereinabove   in   para   8,   of   this   order). Thereafter,   on   24.08.2018,   this   Court   has   passed   the order, as reproduced in para 9, of this order, directing non­ applicant/respondent   No.   4   to   get   the   first   floor constructed, completed and furnished by and through non­ applicant/respondent No. 1, after obtaining the sanction/ permission from Municipal Committee or Town & Country Planning Department. 26. As pleaded in CMP No. 8682 of 2019, in this application also, the appellant­applicant has pleaded that non­applicants/respondents   No.   1   &   4   have   made construction,   without   leaving   any   set   backs,   without obtaining the requisite permission from the authorities and is also, in violation to the directions of this Court. The appellant­applicant   has   further   pleaded   that   non­ applicants No. 1 and 4 have failed to deposit the rent and as such, he has demanded the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/­ per annum, for each floor, w.e.f. March, 2019, till the date of deposit. 27. Alongwith   the   application,   the   appellant­ applicant has annexed the printout of the photographs and 12 2026:HHC:30106 rent agreement between Ashok Kumar,  Dev Kumar  and Smt. Tashi Angmo. 28. When put to notice, this application has been contested   by   the   non­applicants,   by   taking   preliminary objections   that   the   application   is   not   maintainable   and that   the   applicant   is   estopped   from   filing   the   present application on account of his act and conduct. 29. On merits, the factual position of the case has been admitted  with regard  to the filing  of the suit and concurrent findings by the Courts below. The assertion qua fetching of Rs. 16,00,000/­ per annum, as pleaded in the application, has also been contested by pleading that the rent of the said premises cannot exceed Rs. 5,000/­ per month. 30. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 31. The applicant has filed the rejoinder, denying the stand of the non­applicants/respondents, by virtue of which, the application has been contested. 32. Heard. 33. As   per   the   stand   taken   by   the   respondents/ non­applicants,   they   are   ready   to   deposit   the   usufruct 13 2026:HHC:30106 before this Court. Similarly, in the reply to the application bearing CMP No. 7681 of 2024, similar stand has been taken. Moreover, in view of the directions of this Court, the non­applicants   are   also   required   to   deposit   the usufruct/rent of the shop, which has been constructed by them,   in   pursuance   of   the   directions   of   this   Court,   as reproduced above. 34. Along   with   the   application   bearing   CMP   No. 7681 of 2024, the applicant has annexed the photocopy of rent   agreement   dated   25.10.2023. The   said   rent agreement  is  between   applicant  Ashok  Kumar,  one   Dev Kumar, one Tashi Angmo with M/s Big Bike Expeditions Pvt.   Ltd.,   through   its   director   Abhinav   Sood   and   the subject matter of the said agreement is a shop situated opposite PNB Bank Manali, Post Office & Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P.   However, the dimensions of the said shop have not been mentioned. As such, no reliance can be placed upon this document to assess the usufruct of the shop,   constructed   by   respondents   No.   1   and   4,   in pursuance of the directions of this Court. 35. Although,   respondents   No.   1   and   4   have pleaded   that   on   account   of   non­availability   of   water 14 2026:HHC:30106 connection, the rent cannot exceed more than Rs. 5,000/­ per   month. However,   the   said   amount   also   cannot   be accepted as usufruct of the shop in question. 36. In such situation, considering the fact that the shop in question is situated in Manali, which is a tourist attraction center of the country, the rent mentioned in the reply cannot be accepted as gospel truth. Even otherwise, in the affidavit dated 04.01.2020, filed by respondents No. 1 and 4, in compliance of the orders dated 24.08.2018 and 19.07.2019, the rent of the same has been mentioned as Rs. 8,000/­ per month. The construction of the said shop might have been completed much prior to the filing of the affidavit on 04.01.2020. 37. Considering these facts, respondents No. 1 and 4 are directed to deposit the usufruct/rent, which the said property might have fetched at the rate of Rs. 15,000/­ per month,   from   January,   2020   till   date,   and   during   the pendency of the appeal. Arrears be deposited within a period of two months. 38. However,   the   prayer   qua   handing   over   the possession to the applicant is not liable to be accepted, at this stage and as such, the same is rejected. 15 2026:HHC:30106 39. Consequently,   both   the   applications   are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 40. The   amount,   so   deposited,   shall   not   be disbursed to any of the parties and the entitlement of the same   would   be   decided   by   this   Court   at   the   time   of decision of the present appeal. RSA No. 433 of 2014 41. List on 18.08.2026. (Virender Singh) July 21, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)