Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 690 (HP)

Rama Nand v. State of H. P.

2012-10-08

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2012
Judgment Dev Darshan Sud,J. The appellant who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, has preferred this appeal against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing his suit praying for a decree of permanentprohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from cutting/constructing the road and throwing debris and interfering in the suit land of the plaintiff. 2. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land with the other co-sharers. Out of the entire chunk of land, Khasra Nos.1203/1, 1204/1, 1205/1, 1244/1, 1237/1, 1258/1, 1319/1 and 1320/1 were gifted to the State for construction of Batar-Sari road on 17.7.2004. At the time when the gift deed was executed, the defendants State held out that there would be no interference/damage caused to the other part of the suit land. The defendants did not abide by this promise and hence this suit. 3. The learned trial Court on the settled issues held against the plaintiff. There were seven settled issues on which the Court held that the plaintiff voluntarily gifted a portion of the suit land for constructing the road on which construction was carried out by the State without causing any damage. The learned trial Court rejected the case of the plaintiff that loss was caused to the orchard on the ground that what for the solitary statement there was no cogent proof about such loss having taken place no photographs or report of Horticulture Officer etc. has been placed on the record. On the evidence of two other witnesses produced the Court holds that the two witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 stating that the case set up by the appellant plaintiff that damage was caused because of the sliding of the land etc. cannot be accepted. 4. The learned appellate Court accepted these findings and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff now seeks adjudication on the ground that the gift deed was illegal and void and that the suit could not be dismissed for want of joining necessary parties. It was submitted that he was co-owner and therefore can act on behalf of the owners. On the other aspect what I find is that the two Courts below have concurrently held that there was a valid gift deed in favour of the respondent-State by the appellant as also the co-owners. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the gift deed is illegal or void. On the other aspect what I find is that the two Courts below have concurrently held that there was a valid gift deed in favour of the respondent-State by the appellant as also the co-owners. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the gift deed is illegal or void. 5. In these circumstances, I find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.