JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, Judge There is a limit to which an encroacher of public land can extend his luck. It cannot be disputed that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff. It also is not in dispute that neither the Municipal Corporation, Shimla nor the Union of India (who claim to be the owner of the suit property), have allowed the plaintiff to occupy the suit premises. Thus what is the plaintiff’s right to occupy the same, remains unproven on record. In the absence of any authorization or legal sanction, mere issuance of Teh Bazari receipts (Ex.AW-1/A, PW-2/A, Mark ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’), by the Municipal Corporation of Shimla, who is not the owner of the property, would not confer any right, much less indefeasible, upon the plaintiff to occupy the premises in question. 2. Plaintiff-appellant Gokul Ram, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 7.5.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.23-S/13 of 2014, titled as Union of India v. Gukul Chand, whereby judgment and decree dated 30.4.2014, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.5, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.84-1 of 2002, titled as Gokul Ram v. Union of India, stands reversed. 3. Who is the owner of the suit land is a question raised by the plaintiff. Significantly, he has not led any evidence to establish such fact. Official of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla (Shri Brij Lal – PW-2) has deposed that the land does not belong to the Corporation. 4. It is contended by the plaintiff that the land does not belong to the Union of India (sole defendant) and as such their action of dispossessing him is without any legal sanction. But while doing so, he conveniently forgets two substantial facts: (i) himself having moved an application (Ex. 4. It is contended by the plaintiff that the land does not belong to the Union of India (sole defendant) and as such their action of dispossessing him is without any legal sanction. But while doing so, he conveniently forgets two substantial facts: (i) himself having moved an application (Ex. DW-5/A) for getting his unauthorized and illegal possession regularized, in terms of the Policy framed by the State (said document reflects the Khasra number to be the one which is the subject matter of the suit), (ii) an order passed by this Court, in an earlier round of litigation (CWP No.760/1995, titled as Gokul Chand v. The Estate Officer & another, decided on 29.4.1996), with regard to the same subject matter (land), recording his undertaking to the following effect: “…………….. On instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner wants to vacate the said premises within two years and the same will hand over to the respondents. In our opinion two years is a long time, therefore, we allow only one year to the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondents. During the above period he shall not give the premises on subletting or inducting the new person and that he shall not construct any permanent structure. He shall execute a bond before the registry of this Court stating clearly that he shall hand over the vacant possession within one year from today and shall also not induct any sub-tenant or any other person to reside in the premises. He shall also give an undertaking within one week from today.” ………………..” (Emphasis supplied) 5. It appears that by abusing process of law, on one pretext or the other, plaintiff has been able to retain his possession over the suit land, and that too in gross violation of his undertaking furnished to this Court, though it is argued by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that immediately after complying with the order, plaintiff forcibly took possession of the very same land and when steps to regain the possession were taken, he filed a Civil Suit dated 31.8.2002. Noticeably since then his possession stands protected by way of various interim orders passed by the Courts below. 6. At some stage all litigations must come to an end, more so when no indefeasible right stands violated or infringed. 7. Noticeably since then his possession stands protected by way of various interim orders passed by the Courts below. 6. At some stage all litigations must come to an end, more so when no indefeasible right stands violated or infringed. 7. Record reveals that vide Notice/Order dated 6.12.1994 (Ex. DW-2/C), proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff, under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 7.6.1995 (Ex. DW-2/D), dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, which further led to the passing of order dated 29.4.1996 (Ex. DW-3/A) by this court. However, on 21.8.2002, again notice (Ex. DW-2/E) was issued, seeking ejectment of the plaintiff, under the Act. Hence, the action initiated by the Union of India is totally in consonance with law. 8. Significantly, plaintiff did not implead Municipal Corporation, Shimla as a party to present suit. But however, on the strength of Teh Bazari receipts, so issued by the officials of the Corporation, filed a suit, praying for the following relief: “It is, therefore, respectfully, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be allowed and the decree for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the Defendant from evicting and dispossessing and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff from and on the suit property i.e. Tea Stall erected on Retaining Wall near road/Parking IGMC, Hospital, Shimla on Sanjauli Lakkar Bazar road through its servants, contractors, labourers etc., etc. may kindly be passed.” 9. In defence, while pleading ownership of the land, defendant specifically denied the land being owned by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. 10. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy between the parties? OPD 4. Relief. 11. Trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms: ”In view of the aforesaid findings already made while discussing issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.” 12. Trial Court decreed the suit on the premise that the defendant failed to establish its ownership over Khasra No.1467/1. However, the Lower Appellate court, reversed such findings of fact, judgment and decree, by observing as under: “21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.” 12. Trial Court decreed the suit on the premise that the defendant failed to establish its ownership over Khasra No.1467/1. However, the Lower Appellate court, reversed such findings of fact, judgment and decree, by observing as under: “21. The aforesaid findings are totally contrary to the case pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff. There is no case of plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession of Khasra No.1467/1. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.5, Shimla has failed to appreciate that Khasra No.1467/1 can only be a part of Khasra No.1467. 22. There is no convincing evidence on the case file to show that the plaintiff has constructed a new Tea Stall in another place, especially when the plaintiff has failed to establish on record the identify (sic: identity) of the land as discussed above. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court NO.5, Shimla is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The plaintiff is not entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed and the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form. The findings passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.5, Shimla on issues No.1 and 2 are set-aside. Issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiff while issue No.2 is decided in favour of the defendant.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. It be only observed that the plaint is conspicuously silent with regard to Khasra number over which the Tea Stall is being run by the plaintiff. It is not the proven case of the plaintiff that Khasra No.1467/1 is owned by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Even as a witness, he could not depose such fact. He is not even aware about the ownership of Khasra No.1467 and 1467/1. 14. The witness from the Municipal Corporation is categorical that the land is not owned by the Corporation, whereas defendant’s witness has deposed about its ownership. 15. As such, in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is called for. Findings, judgment and decree dated 7.5.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.23-S/13 of 2014, titled as Union of India v. Gukul Chand cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. Also findings cannot be said to be erroneous or based on incorrect/ incomplete appreciation of material on record. 16. Findings, judgment and decree dated 7.5.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.23-S/13 of 2014, titled as Union of India v. Gukul Chand cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. Also findings cannot be said to be erroneous or based on incorrect/ incomplete appreciation of material on record. 16. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the first appellate Court are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. Interim order vacated, reserving liberty to the defendant to take action in accordance with law. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.