OM PRAKASH Vs. DEVI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions, all under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise from the same suit and from common order in three connected appeals arising from that suit and have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) SHRI Devi Ram, respondent in all these appeals had instituted the suit from which these petitions arise, against Om Prakash, petitioner in all the petitions, in or about the year 1987, for permanent injunction restraining Om prakash from dispossessing Devi Ram from property No. 1261/1, Pana Paposian, narela, Delhi (hereinafter called suit property ). It was, inter alia, pleaded in the plaint that the suit property belonged to the father of Devi Ram; that upon the demise of the father of Devi Ram the suit property fell to the share of the respondent Devi Ram in a family settlement; that the suit property comprises of an open area admeasuring 24 sq yds. and bounded by four walls; that the suit property is adjacent to property No. 1286 owned by Om Prakash; that Devi Ram had let out the suit property to one Shri surinder Singh for use as a gher; that Shri Surinder Singh had vacated the suit property in June, 1987 and since then it is in exclusive possession of Devi Ram; that Om Prakash had tried to grab the suit property in connivance with Shri surinder Singh aforesaid and by breaking the wall between his property and the suit property; Devi Ram had then in or about 1984 instituted a suit for permanent injunction against Om Prakash and in which suit Om Prakash put forth his claim as owner of the suit property and on which plea an issue was framed in the earlier suit; that the said issue was decided in favour of Devi Ram and against Om Prakash; however during pendency of the earlier suit Om Prakash had attempted to demolish the wall between his property and the suit property; that the earlier suit was dismissed on the ground that the threats of Om Prakash were over after he had reconstructed the demarcation wall. Devi Ram further pleaded in the suit that Om Prakash had again, just prior to institution of the suit in 1987 attempted to demolish the wall between his property and suit property and to dispossess Devi Ram from the suit property. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) THE suit was accompanied with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining Om Prakash from demolishing any portion of the suit property and/or from dispossessing Devi Ram therefrom. The said application for interim relief was allowed and Om Prakash restrained from demolishing the wall between his property and the suit property and from dispossessing Devi Ram from the suit property.