Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 335 (HP)

Karam Chand v. Jogi Ram

2014-04-02

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the defendant’s Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s Civil Suit No. 28/2004 (100/12/2004), titled as Jogi Ram vs. Karam Chand, stands decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 4, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in terms of judgment and decree dated 3.10.2012. Such findings of fact, judgment and decree stand affirmed by the District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2012, titled as Karam Chand vs. Jogi Ram, filed by the defendant. Thus, the present appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact. 2. Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the following terms:- “In the light of the reasons and discussion made above, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. He is held entitled to decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction with regard to suit land qua the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 297/490, khasra Nos. 1407/1260, measuring 1-9-14 bighas, situated in Muhal “Kotadhar’/520, Ill. Balindhi-Sanor, Sub Tehsil-Aut, Distt. Mandi, H.P. only as no interference has been proved on khasra No. 1459/271. The defendant is ordered to demolish the construction raised on the part of the suit land qua the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 297/490, Khasra Nos. 1407/1260 on his own cost and deliver the vacant possession of Khasra No. 1407/1260 to the plaintiff within one month from the date of decree. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 3. The decree was passed, based on the respective pleadings of the parties, with framing of the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitled for special cost, as alleged? OPD 7. Relief.” 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitled for special cost, as alleged? OPD 7. Relief.” 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal, more so, when no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration. 5. Noticeably, parties have been litigating since the year 2004 and all litigation, more so, which is frivolous in nature must come to an end at some stage. In my considered view, findings rendered by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse, erroneous based on wrong, incorrect/incomplete appreciation of material so produced on record by the parties. 6. Ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land stands established, more so, through revenue record (Ext. PW-3/A) and testimony of the official witness i.e. Kanungo Sh. Daya Ram (PW-4). Defendant raised construction over 0-1-1 bighas of land without any authority or permission of the plaintiff. His action of having encroached upon the land stands established on record. Defendant has not been able to establish his ownership thereupon. 7. Consequently, I do not find any reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts and material placed on record by the parties or that the same is perverse which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.