VIRENDER SINGH Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 31.3.2003. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has dismissed two suits, one for injunction and the second for possession, filed by late Sh. Tulsi Ram, the appellant/plaintiff No.1 being one of his legal heirs. THE original plaintiff-Sh. Tulsi Ram, who expired during the pendency of the suit, was substituted by his three legal heirs, namely, the appellant Sh. Virender Singh, Smt. Neelam Yadav and Smt. Kamini Yadav. Smt. Neelam Yadav and Smt. Kamini Yadav have preferred not to file the appeal and therefore have been impleaded as respondent Nos.12 and 13 in this appeal.

(2.) THE suit for possession was suit No.958/93 in which the plaintiff- Sh. Tulsi Ram sued a total of 12 defendants. In the injunction suit, being suit No.117/2000 there were three defendants. THE defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit for injunction were also the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit for possession. THE suit for injunction though has been disposed of by the impugned judgment alongwith the suit for possession, however, really the suit for injunction had become infructuous in view of the subsequent suit filed for possession. In the suit for injunction, the relief which was claimed was restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the suit land and from making any construction thereon. Admittedly, the subsequent suit for possession was filed claiming back possession of the suit land from the defendants, and therefore, the suit for injunction is infructuous and I am not required to pass any detailed judgment on the same.

(3.) THE trial Court has dismissed the suit on various grounds including of the plaintiffs not being the owners of the suit land, the plaintiffs having concealed material facts and also because the plaintiffs had failed to give and prove details as to which defendant is in occupation of which portion of land, making the passing of the decree against the defendants impossible without there being demarcation and proof of which defendant is in possession of which land and how much area.