Pushpa Saini and Others Vs Chanda Devi

2025:HHC:41244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	RSA No.2/2022 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025
Pushpa Saini and others	.....Appellants.
	Versus
Chanda Devi	…..Respondent
Coram *The Hon’ble Mr. Justice* *Whether approved for r*	*Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.* *eporting?*¹
For the Appellants :	Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur Advocate, with Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent :	Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate.
*Bipin Chander Negi,*	*Judge*(oral).

¶4

This Regular Second Appeal was preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan District Sirmaur, H.P.in Civil Suit No. 15/1 of 2016.

¶5

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court.

¶6

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

¶7

2

¶8

The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the

¶9

present appeal are that the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for a declaration that they acquired the right to use a path (shown as ABCD in the plan) situated in Khasra No. 303 at Mauja Dhabon, Nahan, based on a grant made by the defendant-respondent on 17.01.2016, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their use of the path. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the adjacent property in Khasra Nos. 304, 305 & 307 and asserted that the path in Khasra No. 303 was essential for egress and ingress to their house. It was averred that after the dismissal of their predecessor's (Sh. Lajja Ram) Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 291 of 2005) by the High Court on 03.11.2015, the parties amicably settled the dispute on 17.01.2016, whereby the defendant agreed to allow the plaintiffs to use the path upon payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The plaintiffs claimed to have paid Rs. 10,000/- on that date and the balance of Rs. 90,000/- on 02.03.2016. They contended that relying on this settlement, they forewent their right to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the defendant allegedly reneged and started obstructing the path by putting up an iron gate from 06.03.2016.

¶10

The defendant contested the suit, denying the existence of any such path for the plaintiffs' use and the alleged compromise or monetary transaction. She asserted that the plaintiffs' predecessor had been permanently restrained by a decree

¶11

3

¶12

dated 28.11.1994 in Civil Suit No. 15/1 of 1991 from interfering with Khasra No. 303, a decree which was upheld up to the High Court. She further stated that the plaintiffs were facing execution proceedings and a suit for damages.

¶13

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court on 19.05.2017:-

¶14

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of declaration, as claimed?...OPP.

¶15

2) Whether the plaintiffs are also entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as claimed? ..OPP

¶16

3) Whether suit is false, frivolous and vexatious to cause unlawful loss to the defendant, as alleged? ...OPD

¶17

4) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? ...OPD

¶18

5) Relief.

¶19

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the first appeal. Their contentions before the First Appellate Court were concise: that the Trial Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, particularly by disbelieving the testimonies of the plaintiffs and their witness (PW3 Babu Ram) who corroborated the settlement and payment; that the findings were against the weight of evidence and based on surmises; and that the Court gave an unduly technical construction to the law and evidence. However, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, leading to the filing of the present second

¶20

appeal.

¶21

4

¶22

7. Heard Counsels for the parties, perused the impugned

¶23

judgements.

¶24

The plaintiffs' suit is founded on the assertion of an oral agreement or grant allegedly made by the defendant on 17.01.2016, whereby, in consideration of a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the defendant permitted the plaintiffs to use a path across her land in Khasra No. 303. The plaintiffs contend that relying on this settlement, they forgone their right to pursue further appeal against the adverse decree passed by the High Court in earlier litigation. The defendant has unequivocally denied any such meeting, compromise, or monetary transaction.

¶25

The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to prove this alleged oral agreement is fundamentally unreliable and contradictory. The testimony of plaintiff No. 2, Yonark Saini (PW-2), is inconsistent with that of his own witness, Babu Ram (PW-3). PW-2 stated the journey to the defendant's village, Nalka, was undertaken in a Ford Figo car, while PW-3 claimed they traveled by HRTC bus and then proceeded on foot. More critically, PW-3, in his affidavit (Ext. PW-3/A), purported to be a witness to the payment of Rs. 90,000/-, but during cross-examination, he admitted this payment was not made in his presence. This admission severely undermines the core of the plaintiffs' narrative.

¶26

The documentary evidence intended to corroborate the

¶27

payment, namely the bank account statement (Ext. PW-1/A),

¶28

5

¶29

reveals a withdrawal of Rs. 1,35,000/- on the relevant date, not Rs.90,000/-. The plaintiffs offered no explanation for this significant discrepancy, failing to connect the withdrawn sum specifically to the alleged payment to the defendant. Furthermore, one of the alleged witnesses to the settlement, Mohit Kumar, was given up and not produced for cross-examination, leading to an adverse inference against the plaintiffs' case.

¶30

In contrast, the defendant, Smt. Chanda Devi (DW-1), and her son (DW-2) have provided consistent and firm denials. They have reaffirmed the lengthy and adversarial history of litigation between the parties, a fact not disputed. The defendant has successfully placed on record a previous decree (Ext. DW-1/A) from 1994, which permanently restrained the plaintiffs' predecessor from interfering with Khasra No. 303, a decree that attained finality up to the High Court. The plaintiffs' own revenue record (Ext. PW-2/B) consistently shows the defendant as the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. In this context, the claim that after decades of bitter litigation, culminating in the defendant's victory in the High Court, she suddenly agreed to orally grant a right of passage for a modest sum, without any written documentation or subsequent action to withdraw the pending execution proceedings, is inherently implausible and defies credulity.

¶31

Additionally, the plaintiffs' own site plan (Ext. PW-4/A)

¶32

belies their assertion of having no alternative access to their

¶33

6

¶34

property, indicating the existence of structures and spaces that suggest other possible points of ingress and egress.

¶35

Therefore, this Court concurs with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of a valid oral grant, license, or any legally recognizable right over the defendant's property. The story put forth appears to be an afterthought, concocted to circumvent the final judgments passed in the defendant's favour. Consequently, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration or the permanent injunction sought. The suit is without merit, lacks a bona fide cause of action, and constitutes an abuse of the process of the court, filed with the intent to cause unlawful harassment to the defendant after having lost the legal battle on the same subject matter.

¶36

In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, for consideration of this Court. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, subject to costs of ₹10,000/-, to be paid by the appellants to the ‘Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Account No. 18330110060070, IFSC Code: UCBA0001833, Branch: High Court Complex, Shimla’. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶37

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶38

2^nd December, 2025 (tarun/T.B)

¶39

7

Pushpa Saini and Others v. Chanda Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Saini and Others v. Chanda Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NHAI Vs Sunder Nagar Integrated Rural Development Association

Bhagwan Dass and Another Vs Babu Ram

Om Piari Vs Meer Chand and Others

Manish Kumar Vs State of Hp

Veena Thakur Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited and Anr.

Vijay Ram Sharma Deceased through His Lrs Jodhya Devi and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar Sharma and Ors.