PARAS RAM Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dated 23.5.2002.

(2.) It appears Plaintiff/Appellant is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 259, whereas Defendant/Respondent is owner in possession of adjoining land comprised in Khasra No. 260. Both the parties obtained demarcation separately. The case of the Plaintiff is that portion of his land has been encroached upon by the Defendant. The learned trial Judge as well as the first appellate Court found that the Plaintiff has failed to prove any encroachment on the part of Defendant on his land. Plaintiff examined one Raju Ram, Retired Tehsildar to prove the demarcation Ex. PW3/1. He admitted that he did not measure Khasra No. 259 nor did he draw any perpendiculars. However, he did come to conclusion that the land in possession of the Plaintiff was short by 5 sarsai, which was negligible and under the Revenue Code such shortage is liable to be ignored. There is no evidence on record as noticed by the trial Judge as well as by the first appellate Court to show that any part of the land of the Plaintiff was encroached upon by the Defendant or any part of the house of the Defendant falls on any part of the land of the Plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that at no stage either before the learned trial Judge or the first appellate Court, the Plaintiff asked for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to demarcate his land.

(3.) Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the Appellant relying upon Beli Ram v. Mela Ram and Anr., 2003 AIR(HP) 87, strenuously urges that Court suo motu should have appointed a Local Commissioner to demarcate the land. It is true that a Court has a jurisdiction to appoint a Local Commissioner suo motu, if the Court deems it necessary to elucidate any matter in dispute. But this principle cannot be extended to the facts of the case.