Dismissed¶¶31

Diwan Chand v. Ravinder Kumar and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Apr 2025RSA/111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; RSA No.111/2024; Diwan Chand v. Ravinder Kumar & Anr.; decided 08.04.2025 by Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Co-sharer dispute over jointly possessed suit land; suit for permanent prohibitory injunction; trial Court decree based on admission in cross-examination and Jamabandi Ex.P1; First Appellate Court reversal citing separate possession in revenue record and construction raised by the parties; second appeal found to raise no substantial question of law and dismissed. Counsel: J.R. Poswal (appellant); Y.P. Sood (respondents).

What did the court decide?

The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for cogent and valid reasons. ¶¶30

Diwan Chand Vs Ravinder Kumar and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:HHC:9748

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

	RSA No.111/2024. Date of Decision: 08^thApril, 2025.
Diwan Chand	.....Appellant. Versus
Ravinder Kumar & Anr.	…..Respondents.
Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Appellant: Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.

¶8

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

¶9

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments.

¶10

2. The present appellant was the plaintiff before the trial Court. In the suit filed by the present appellant, it was averred that the suit land is jointly possessed by the parties along with other co-sharers. In the plaint, it was further stated that the present respondent has threatened to change the nature of the suit land by raising construction over the vacant portion. Hence the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed.

¶11

3. Per contra, the defendants filed a written statement, wherein they did not deny that the suit land is jointly owned by them. However, they contended that the parties are in separate possession of the suit land. Further allegations qua change of nature of the suit land was categorically denied. The present appellant filed a replication reiterating averments made

¶12

¶13

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

¶14

¶15

2025:HHC:9748

¶16

in the plaint and denying those to the contrary. On the basis of

¶17

pleadings following issues were framed:-

¶18

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

¶19

2. Whether the plaintiff in the alternative is entitled for the decree of possession, as prayed for? OPP.

¶20

3. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD.

¶21

4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed true and material facts from the scrutiny of this Court, as alleged? OPD.

¶22

5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not legally material in its present form, as alleged? OPD

¶23

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD.

¶24

7. Relief.”

¶25

4. The trial Court decreed the suit so filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of admission made by the present respondents in the cross-examination, wherein respondent No.1 clearly admitted that the suit land is jointly owned by the parties and has not been partitioned. Further reliance was placed on the Jamabandi (Ex.P1), which recorded the suit land to be jointly owned and possessed by the parties. The presumption of truth attached with the aforesaid revenue record was made a basis for decreeing the suit of the present appellant. The trial Court was of the view that till the time the suit land is not partitioned by metes and bounds, equitable relief of injunction needs to be granted in favour of the present appellant.

¶26

4. In appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. The setting aside of the trial Court judgment and decree by the First Appellate Court was on

¶27

¶28

2025:HHC:9748

¶29

account of the fact that in the revenue record, the suit land had been separately recorded in possession of the parties. Other than the aforesaid, the present appellant had raised construction over the suit land and the respondents herein had laid the plinth upon the site of their collapsed house. Besides the aforesaid, as per the First Appellate Court, the appellant herein failed to establish that the respondents are raising construction on a valuable portion of the suit land. Based on the well-settled law that where a co-sharer has raised construction himself, he cannot restrain the other co-owner from raising construction, the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court set aside.

¶30

6. The First Appellate Court for cogent valid reasons has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal raises no question of law much less a substantial question of law.

¶31

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of

¶32

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶33

08^th April, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)

Diwan Chand v. Ravinder Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diwan Chand v. Ravinder Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sapna Vs Avnish Kumar

Managing Director Vs Dharminder Singh

Lal Bahadur Vs Satish Rathour

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Prem Singh

Ravi Alias Bachana Vs Pawan Sahni

State of Hp and Others Vs Mohan Lal