In this second appeal, the Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit for a permanent injunction. The appeal regarding the rejection of the Local Commissioner appointment and additional evidence was dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RSA No. 481 of 2005 Reserved on: 16.11.2015 Decided on: 18.11.2015
Khem Singh. …Appellant. Versus Y.R. Sharma. …Respondent.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellant : Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge .
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2005 rendered by the District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 72-S/13 of 2004.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2
co-owners of the suit land. He purchased 8 biswas of land from Khasra No. 153/57 vide sale deed No. 264 dated 18.3.1991. Defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land. He has threatened to interfere in the suit land.
3
original Musabi and torn Momi copy thereof had not been produced and demarcation could be carried out with the Aks tatima in respect of Khasra numbers 57 and 47 which could have been located?
substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the boundary dispute could only be determined by appointing Local Commissioner. He has lastly contended that application under order 41 rule 27 has been rejected in an illegal manner.
he has purchased the suit land on 13.3.1991 from Surmi and Jeet Ram vide sale deed No.264. He has proved copy
4
of sale deed Ex.P-1, copy of Jamabandi for the year 199192 Ex.P-2 and tatima mark ‘A’. Defendant has no concern over the suit land. He had engaged labourers to remove the bushes. Defendant forced his labourers to leave the spot. He has proved copy of demarcation report mark ‘B’. He has denied in his cross-examination that Khasra No.57 is part of Khasra No. 47.
5
number exists below Khasra No.153/57. He did not know which Khasra number is in existence over Khasra No.47.
6
Moreover, there was no encroachment found as per demarcation report dated 15.5.1983. The purpose of application under order 41 rule 27 is not to fill up the lacunae in the case. The purpose of application under order 26 rule 9 CPC is to ascertain the position on the spot.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
18.11.2015 awasthi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether courts were justified in rejecting the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner to determine the boundary dispute?
Whether the rejection of the application for additional evidence and failure to demarcate the exact plot location vitiated the findings?
Whether the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of evidence was wrongly rejected in a non-boundary dispute case?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Khem Singh
Y.R. Sharma
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
