Dismissed

Chander Parkash v. Sita Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Oct 2024RSA/73/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning a suit for permanent injunction and possession, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh concise reviews concurrent findings that the appellants lacked title and failed to prove adverse possession. Finding no substantial question of law and lacking explanation for the belated production of documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appeal and the application were dismisse

What did the court decide?

Second appeal and application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC dismissed; no substantial question of law found.

Chander Parkash Vs Sita Ram — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:9946

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No.73 of 2021 Decided on 15^th October, 2024

¶3

Chander Parkash and others …Appellants Versus Sita Ram (since deceased) through his legal representatives and others

¶4

…Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the appellants: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral ) By way of this Regular Second Appeal, the

¶9

appellants/defendants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, titled as Sita Ram versus Chander Parkash and others, as also the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.25 of 2016, titled as Chander Parkash and others versus Sita Ram, in terms whereof, the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial Court and the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.

¶10

¶11

2024:HHC:9946

¶12

The appellants have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC praying therein that the applicants be allowed to place on record the documents appended therewith i.e. copy of sale deed dated 05.05.1999 and copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-01.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also

¶14

the learned counsel for the respondents and having carefully perused the judgments passed by the learned Courts below, this Court does not finds any substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

¶15

Respondent/plaintiff hereinafter referred as to the plaintiff

¶16

had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from raising any construction or interfering in any manner or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and in the alternative

¶17

for possession on the ground that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and defendant No.1, who was the owner of the adjoining land and was stranger qua suit land, had illegally and forcibly started digging the suit land on 19.11.2008 with the intent to raise construction. Despite requests of plaintiff, as the defendants did not desist themselves from their acts, hence the suit.

¶18

The suit was resisted by the appellants/defendants, inter alia , on the ground that defendant No.2 had purchased the suit land from one Sh. Prem Chand, vide sale deed dated 05.05.1999 and possession was delivered to the defendants on the basis of the sale

¶19

¶20

2024:HHC:9946

¶21

deed including an old residential house standing thereupon, which was subsequently repaired by the defendants. Alternative plea was taken by them that have perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by holding that whereas on one hand, the plaintiff had duly proved by leading cogent evidence that he was the owner of the suit land and it also stood proved that the defendants were in possession thereof, but the defendants had failed to demonstrate that either the suit land was purchased by them or that they had perfected their title by way of adverse possession.

¶22

In appeal, these findings were upheld by the learned Appellate Court, hence this appeal.

¶23

There are concurrent findings returned by the learned Courts below to the effect that the suit land was owned by the respondent/plaintiff. Further, there are concurrent findings returned by the learned Courts below that the defendants were in possession of the suit land without any valid title and hence decree has been passed by partly decreeing the suit by holding that the plaintiff was entitled for decree of possession of the suit land by way of demolition of the structure constructed thereupon by the defendants. A perusal of the record demonstrates that no evidence, this Court repeats, no evidence

¶24

at all was led by the defendants before the learned trial Court or

¶25

¶26

2024:HHC:9946

¶27

before the learned 1^st Appellate Court to substantiate their contention that they had come in possession of the suit land by way of a sale deed or by way of a compromise entered into between the parties. The plea that they had perfected their title by way of adverse possession was also rejected by the learned Courts below as the defendants failed to establish that their possession was open, peaceful and hostile qua the true owner. In fact the very factum of the defendants taking the defence of adverse possession amounted to their conceding the fact that the suit land was owned by the plaintiff. Thus, when the concurrent findings that have been returned by the learned Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit; defendants were trespassers thereupon and they had failed to establish that they had perfected their title by way of adverse possession are based on the evidence on record and perversity could be pointed out there-in on the basis of record, this Court does not finds any substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

¶28

As far as the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of

¶29

the CPC is concerned, there is no explanation as to why the documents which the appellants now intend to place on record could not be placed by them before the learned Trial Court, because, it is not their case that the documents were not in their possession at the time when they filed the written statement. The bald assertion in the

¶30

¶31

2024:HHC:9946

¶32

application that they had taken all steps to place on record the sale deed etc., are false averments, because, it could not be demonstrated as to what prevented the appellants from placing the documents appended with the application before the learned trial Court. Therefore, as the appellants have not been able to explain due diligence and further as this Court can pronounce the judgment to the effect that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal on the basis of the material already on record, the application is dismissed and so is the fate of the appeal. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶34

October 15, 2024 (Vinod)

¶35

Digitally signed by BHUPENDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL BHUPE PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=04d8bcd7412dcb18b7b081df02fb3b 89ecc4a0c8f8a66ab97285dc56e62d41fe, NDER PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=2ccc91b5122501da0ce3678b0e2b7bd5fa9b09937769da5501e1f4e7 ad448bc5, CN=BHUPENDER KUMAR Reason: I am approving this document with KUMAR my legally binding signatureLocation: Date: 2024-10-21 16:38:10

Chander Parkash v. Sita Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Parkash v. Sita Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritesh Verma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Monika Banyal and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Suman Chauhan and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kala Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Manju Sharma Vs Kushal Kumar Sharma

Rakesh Kumari Vs State of Hp and Ors.