2026:HHC:18434 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. : 258 of 2023 Decided on : 19.05.2026 Mast Ram …Appellant Versus Nasib Singh …Respondent The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Anita, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Appellant Mast Ram has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 20 of Himachal Pradesh Court Act, 1976, against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No. 36/XIII/2012/2023, titled as “Mast Ram Vs Nasib Singh”. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:18434 2. Vide judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant, which had been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 274/2004, titled as “Nasib Singh Vs Mast Ram”. 3. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of respondent Nasib Singh, bearing Civil Suit No. 274/2004, titled as “Nasib Singh Vs Mast Ram”, by granting the following relief: “15. In view of my findings on issues above, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed with no orders as to costs. A decree for possession is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to hand over the possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 197 min, Khatauni No. 489 min, Khasra No. 353, measuring 0-01-20 Hms, situated in Mohal Kehrian, Mauza and Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra (HP) as per jamabandi for the years 2002-2003 to the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. The file, after its due completion, be consigned to the Record Room.” 4. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis, are hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 3 2026:HHC:18434 5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under: 5.1 Plaintiff Nasib Singh, has filed a suit for possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 197 min, Khatauni No. 489 min, Khasra No. 353, measuring 0-01- 20 HMs, situated in Mohal Kehrian, Mauza and Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra (HP) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), as per jamabandi for the years 2002-2003 and on the basis of demarcation report dated 27.11.2003, in Missal No. 172/RNT of 05.04.2002, decided on 24.12.2003. 5.2 According to the plaintiff, the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff, but, in the month of March, 2003, the defendant illegally and unlawfully took the possession of the suit land by use of force, as a result of which, the plaintiff has to apply for the demarcation of the suit land, when the defendant refused to admit the title of the plaintiff. In the demarcation report, it was found that the defendant has encroached upon the suit land. He has termed the possession of the defendant, over the suit land, as ‘illegal, wrongful and unauthorized and that of a 4 2026:HHC:18434 tresspasser’. As such, relief of possession has been sought. 6. When put to notice, the suit has been contested by the defendant, by filing the written statement, in which, he has taken the plea that the suit is not maintainable; the plaintiff has no cause of action; the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands; the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction; and the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as possession of the defendant over the suit land is for more than twelve years, that too, open, peaceful, hostile, uninterrupted and well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. He has denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land on the ground of adverse possession. 6.1 Elaborating his stand, the defendant has asserted in the written statement, in reply to para 2 of the plaint, by pleading that the suit land never remained in possession of the plaintiff and it has also been denied that the defendant had obtained the possession of the same illegally and unlawfully, by using force, in the month of March, 2003. 5 2026:HHC:18434 6.2 According to the defendant, earlier his predecessor-in-interest was in possession of the suit land and after his death, he is in possession of the suit land, since 1945. The possession of the defendant over the suit land is stated to be open, peaceful, hostile, uninterrupted and well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. 6.3 On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the suit. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 17.08.2005: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the defendant has forcibly encroached upon the suit land on March, 2003? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Whether the defendant has become the owner by way of adverse possession? OPD 7. Relief. 8. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 6 2026:HHC:18434 9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011. 10. The said judgment and decree has unsuccessfully been assailed by defendant Mast Ram before the learned First Appellate Court. 11. After the dismissal of the appeal, he has filed the present appeal, before this Court, with a prayer that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as according to him, he is in possession of the suit land since 1945 and before that, his predecessor-in-interest was in possession over the suit land. He has denied that plaintiff ever remained in possession of the suit land. 12. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by learned First Appellate Court, has been assailed on the ground that the plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit land, as such, learned trial Court has wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession. 7 2026:HHC:18434 13. On the basis of the grounds of appeal, Sh. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, appearing for the appellant- defendant, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be admitted on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether the findings by both the Courts below are palpably illegal and erroneous on account of concurrent misrepresentation and misconstruction of the pleadings of the parties, as well as oral and documentary evidence on record and the legal preposition of law as applicable to the facts of the case? 2. Whether the findings of the Learned First Appellate Court are a result of complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and the law as applicable to the facts of the present case, and as such palpably erroneous and illegal and if so to what effect? 3. Whether the findings given by both the Courts below are not against the facts and evidence and based on surmises and conjectures? 4. Whether the First Appellate Court failed to formulate proper points for determination and whether failure of it has affected its judgment and resulted into miscarriage of justice of the appellants? 5. Whether the open, peaceful, uninterrupted possession of the appellate over the suit land since 1945 can be termed as unauthorized?” 14. Per contra, Sh. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Anita, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, has prayed that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of the parties and thereafter, rightly passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff, as the defendant has miserably failed to prove his 8 2026:HHC:18434 plea of adverse possession. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal. 15. Heard. 16. Pleadings are the backbone of the case of the parties. Plaintiff has sought the relief of possession on the ground of his ownership. The plaintiff has asserted his ownership, on the basis of revenue record Ext. P-1, in which, the name of plaintiff has been recorded in the column of ownership, as well as, in possession. The defendant, in the present case, has taken the plea of adverse possession. 17. According to the plaintiff, possession of the suit land has been obtained by the defendant forcibly, in the month of March, 2003. This fact has been pleaded in para 2 of the plaint, which is reproduced, as under: “That previously, the land detailed and described in the heading of the plaint was in possession of the plaintiff, but in the month of March 2003, the defendant illegally and unlawfully took the possession of the suit land by use of force as a result of which the plaintiff has to apply for the demarcation of the land, when the defendant refused to admit the title of the plaintiff and in demarcation report, it was found that the defendant has encroached upon the land of Khasra No. 353 measuring 00-01-20HMs i.e. the suit land. Copy of the demarcation report is attached herewith.” 9 2026:HHC:18434 18. This para 2 of the plaint, has been rebutted by the defendant through his written statement and para 2 of the written statement, is reproduced, as under: “Para No. 2 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff and in the month of March 2003 the defendant took the possession of the suit land illegally and unlawfully by use of force. It is submitted that earlier the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant was in possession of the suit land and after his death the defendant is in possession of the suit land since 1945 and the possession of the defendant over the suit land is open, peaceful, hostile, un-interrupted and well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and as such the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.” 19. When the defendant appeared in the witness box as DW-1, he has filed his affidavit, in his examination- in-chief. Paragraph 1 of the affidavit is reproduced, as under: “यहकक भकमम ववदगगरसत वरर 1951-52 सस हह हमवरस कबजव मसम हह व हम चवर भवईययम मसत रवम रघघनवथ कसमह, करर कसमह व रवकजनदगर कसमह कव हह कबजव हह। पहलस जब तक वरर 1982 तक हमवरस कपतव जहकवत रहस तब तक उनकह हह कबजव थव उनकस मरनस कस उपरवनत हमवरव चवरयम भवईययम कव भकमम ववदगगरसत पर कबजव हह। ववदह कव कबजव भकमम ववदगगरसत पर कभह न रहव। यह भमकम पहलस गयपवलव पघतगर खडकम कय वरर 1950 मसम अललट हघई थह जबकक खवनव कवशत मसम बलवनत कसमह व कस हर कसह कपसरवन कडडय रवम सवकन दसह कबलव लगवन गहर ममरसह दजर हह परनतघ भकमम ववदगगरसत पर कबजव पगरकतववदह कस कपतव कव हह थव। ववदह नस कमल कमलवकर गलत तरहकस सस भकमम ववदगगरसत कव इनतकवल अपनस नवम करवव कलयव जयकक कबलकघ ल गलत व तथययम कस कवपकरत हघआ थव पगरकतववदह कस कपतव कह ममतयघ कस बवद भकमम ववदगगरसत पर पगरकतववदह व उसकस भवईययम कव कबजव हह। जबकक कस हर कसमह व बलवनत कसमह पघतगर कडडय रवम पगरकतववदह कस कपतव कस सगस भवई हह। यह कबलकघ ल गलत हह कक पगरकतववदह नस जबरदसतह मवचर 2003 मसम कबजव ककयव जबकक पगरकतववदह व उसकस भवईययम कव कबजव वरर 1951-52 सस हह हह।" 20. Admittedly, the stand as taken by the defendant, while appearing in the witness box, as DW-1, is 10 2026:HHC:18434 beyond his pleadings, as in his written statement, he has not asserted that the suit land is in his possession, since 1951-52 and he along with his three brothers, Raghunath Singh, Karan Singh and Rajender Singh, is in possession. Neither this fact has been found in the written statement that till 1982, during his life time, his father remained in his possession and after his death, now possession is with four brothers, including the defendant. Whereas, the defendant, in the cross-examination, has admitted that the demarcation was got conducted by the plaintiff in the year 2003 and in that demarcation, their illegal possession was found. When the statement of the sole DW is beyond the pleadings, then the same has rightly been ignored by the learned trial Court by decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 21. No other point has been urged or argued. 22. In view of the above, no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 23. The amount deposited by the appellant, towards use and occupation charges, be released in favour of the respondent. 11 2026:HHC:18434 23. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 19th May, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)