RAMPAL Vs. MAHIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed against the common judgment dated 22.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge while disposing of two appeals which had arisen out of a common judgment and decree dated 31.08.1999 passed by the trial Court dismissing two suits for injunction filed separately by the appellants and the respondents herein. The present appellants were the plaintiffs in one of those two suits which was registered as Suit No.73 of 1988 and the first appeal arising out of that suit was registered as RCA no. 157/03. The other suit in which the respondents herein were the plaintiffs was registered as suit no. 74/1988 and the first appeal arising out of that suit was registered as RCA No.134/03. Vide judgment dated 22.09.2003 the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellants while respondents' appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing their suit for permanent injunction was set aside.

(2.) THE facts leading to the initiation of legal fight between the parties by filing of two separate suits for injunction against each other in respect of the suit plot may first be noted in brief. The fight between the parties was in respect of the ownership and possession of one plot of land measuring 216 sq. yds out of khasra No. 168 in the revenue estate of village Mauzpur, Shahdara, Delhi. This land admittedly belonged to the predecessor-in ­interest of the appellants, namely, late Shri Kishnu. As per the case of the respondents herein the suit plot was sold by late Shri Kishnu to one Smt. Chander Kala by executing a sale deed. That Smt. Chander Kal then sold half of that plot in favour of respondent no. 1 Mahipal Sharma and half to his wife but was also handed over to them by her. The appellants on the other hand denied that the suit plot was ever sold by late Shri Kishnu to anyone and they claimed themselves to be its owner in possession. As both the parties wanted to raise construction over the suit plot but were unable to so claimed themselves to the owners in possession of as the other side was not permitting that to be done and that situation led to the filing of separate suits for injunction claiming the decree of injunction against each other for not interfering in the possession over the suit plot. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court and common evidence was recorded in the case of the respondents herein which was treated as the lead case.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved the appellants filed their appeal under section 100 CPC and in the memorandum of appeal they claimed that in this second appeal the following substantial questions of law arise for decision by this Court: