Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1125 (HP)

PIRU RAM v. BEASAN DEVI

2014-08-22

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. In this appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , appellants have assailed concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the present appeal so filed by the appellants. 3. Facts are not in dispute. Jagdish Chand filed a suit for injunction and with an alternate prayer for possession, with respect to the suit land. Allegedly defendants, appellants herein, encroached upon the same. 4. Trial Court, based on respective pleadings of parties, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD. 3. Whether the defendants are in adverse possession of the suit land or any portion thereof for the last more than 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, if so, with what effect? OPD. 4. Relief. 5. Court found the plaintiff to be in possession of suit land only to the extent of 2 marlas comprising Khasra No.256/1. Trial Court did not find favour with the defendants plea of having perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 15.06.1995, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Suit No.56-1 of 1985, titled as Jagdish Chand v. Piru Ram & others, trial Court decreed the suit as under:- "19. Though no specific issue has been framed regarding the relief of possession yet I find that in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed in the alternative for a decree of possession by demolition of the structure raised by the defendants in the suit land. The local commission i.e. Tehsildar Settlement carried out demarcation in accordance with the copy of settlement musabi but in that musabi the entire suit land has been shown as Khasra No.19, whereas after the consolidation the suit land was given Khasra No.256. In my view the relief can be granted in accordance with the latest record. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.256/1 new number of the suit land, measuring 2 marlas as shown in Aks Sazra Ext. In my view the relief can be granted in accordance with the latest record. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.256/1 new number of the suit land, measuring 2 marlas as shown in Aks Sazra Ext. O.W.1/C. Accordingly the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.256/1 new Khasra number of the suit land as per jamabandi for 1984-85 Ext. D-2 and Aks Sazra Ext. O.W.1/c with costs. Both these documents shall form part of the decree sheet which be drawn accordingly. File after its due completion be consigned to the Record Room." 6. Findings of fact, judgment and decree stand affirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 26.08.2002, passed in Civil Appeal No.101 of 1995, titled as Piru Ram & others v. Jagdish Chand and another. 7. The defendants appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether the admissible evidence on record was not considered by the trial court and the first appellate court, which if considered would have resulted in the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff?" 8. It is urged that Courts below erred in decreeing the suit by taking into account report of the Local Commissioner (Ex.OW.1/B) which as prepared is contrary to the provisions of law. Also the Local Commissioner exceeded the scope of reference in recording the compromise between the parties. 9. It is not in dispute that Local Commissioner, who is an expert, was appointed by the trial Court to visit the spot for carrying out demarcation with respect to the suit land. Significantly at the time of his visit, on the spot, parties agreed to the method so adopted by him for carrying out demarcation. Also Local Commissioner recorded compromise which the parties entered into on the spot. This fact stands elaborately discussed by the lower Appellate Court in para 19 of the impugned judgment. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity with such findings. Report in question was correctly and completely relied upon by the trial Court in deciding the issues and adjudicating the lis between the parties. 10. Reliance on the decision rendered in Rajinder Parshad and others v. Lachhman Dass and others, 2001 (2) Shim. L.C. 21, is misconceived in the given facts. Report in question was correctly and completely relied upon by the trial Court in deciding the issues and adjudicating the lis between the parties. 10. Reliance on the decision rendered in Rajinder Parshad and others v. Lachhman Dass and others, 2001 (2) Shim. L.C. 21, is misconceived in the given facts. Here parties agreed to the procedure, accepted the same, and accordingly got the land demarcated. Not only that, they also entered into a compromise. It is no bodies case that the same was under duress, misconception or done by exercising fraud. 11. Noticeably parties have been litigating since the year 1985. Appellants have lost before the Courts below. All litigation's must come to an end, more so where parties have mutually agreed to resolve their dispute on the spot. Also an endeavour was made by this Court for amicable resolution of the dispute. Regretfully, despite efforts put in by the learned counsel no compromise could be arrived at. 12. Consequently, I do not find any reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that learned Courts below, erred in correctly and completely appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses or that findings returned are illegal, erroneous or perverse in any manner which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 13. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 14. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.