RAJESH ALIAS KHANNA Vs. TEJ PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 2.6.2010 and the appellate court dated 28.2.2013; by which the suit of the respondents -plaintiffs for injunction was decreed with respect to the suit property bearing no. 26/1, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi. The subject suit was filed seeking injunction to restrain the appellants/defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondents - plaintiffs.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the property bearing no.26 was jointly owned by two brothers namely Sh. Peerumal and Sh. Mohan Lal. The two brothers however later on divided the house whereby the portion of the said house no. 26 measuring 50 sq. yds came to the share of Sh. Peerumal, grandfather of the respondents -plaintiffs. Sh. Peerumal owned another house bearing no. 2/24, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi and therefore he left a major portion of the property bearing no.26 to the share of his brother Sh. Mohan Lal and who is the grandfather of the appellants -defendants. It was stated by the respondents -plaintiffs that after the division of the property a small part of the property consisting of one room/bethak fell to the share of Sh. Peerumal, the grandfather of the respondents -plaintiffs and was accordingly numbered as 26/1. The main property came to have been numbered as 26, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi. It was further pleaded that since 1938, the suit property was being used by the respondents -plaintiffs, however, due to paucity of space, the respondents -plaintiffs had constructed another house bearing no.26/2, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi and property bearing no.26/1 continued to be under the continuous possession and enjoyment of the respondents -plaintiffs and their family members. The suit was filed inasmuch as, the appellants -defendants were threatening to dispossess the respondents -plaintiffs from the suit property bearing no.26/1.

(3.) THE appellants -defendants also claimed that there was no property bearing no.26/1 and therefore, respondents' -plaintiffs' suit should not succeed.