ROHTASH Vs. SATBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment dated 10.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03/North District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned 'Trial Court') in CS No.1539/2016 whereby the plaint filed by appellant for permanent and mandatory injunction was rejected in respect of property bearing Khasra No.180, area admeasuring 01 bigha in Village Mukandpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'suit property').

(2.) Before coming to the impugned judgment, let me state in brief the facts which led to filing of this suit. The appellant herein, initially, had filed Civil Suit No.297/2010 for permanent and mandatory injunction alleging interalia he is a Kaastkaar, in possession of suit property and the Jamabandi and Khatoni etc are in his name. The appellant is alleged to be a recorded owner of the suit property in revenue records, which property has been allotted to him by the Central Rehabilitation Department since the year 1980 and he is in peaceful possession since then. It is alleged the respondents / defendants are the real brothers of appellant, residing in the adjoining house at a distance of 500 meters, yet are disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellant and are trying to dispossess him from the subject property by taking forcible possession of the suit property with the help of anti social elements. The appellant alleged the cause of action for this suit arose on 01.2.2010, 07.12.2010, and 17.12.2010 when the respondents came to his suit property and had threatened the appellant to dispossess him and hence he filed Civil Suit No.297/2010 in December 2010. However, this suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.07.2011 on the statement of the appellant that he does not wish to pursue the suit. The suit was withdrawn without any liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff yet again filed another suit being Civil Suit No.346/2011 for permanent injunction and declaration on similar contentions alleging the cause of action for this second suit arose on 28.06.2011. The declaration thus was sought by the appellant to declare him as an owner of the suit property.