VIKRAM SINGH Vs. OM SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.04.2013 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in Civil Appeal No.5/2010 whereby the appeal of the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2010/16.02.2010 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Rishikesh in O.S. No.509/2002, whereby the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction was dismissed, has been upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (the appellant herein) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction being numbered as O.S. No.509 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Rishikesh, District Dehradun against the defendants/respondents stating therein that the plaintiff had purchased a piece of land measuring 8268 sq.ft. situated in Village Shivajee Nagar from the defendant/respondent no.4 on 14.11.1990 by way of an unregistered sale deed. Since then the plaintiff/appellant was in peaceful possession of the property in suit but after creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the defendants are threatening to dispossess him from his possession. The respondents/defendants contested the suit and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the suit. The defendant/respondent also filed counter claim stating that the possession of the property sought by the plaintiff/appellant in plaint is different to the property purchased by the plaintiff and it was prayed that the plaintiff/appellant be restrained from dispossessing the defendant/respondent from the property mentioned in the written statement which is a part of the plaint property. On the pleading of the parties, learned trial court framed as many as six issues. Following are the relevant issues:

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for parties and after perusal of the record, learned trial court decided the above three issues in favour of the defendant/respondent. The trial court in reply of issue no.1 held that the plaintiff is not the owner and in possession over the property mentioned in the suit. Vide judgment and order dated 09.02.2010, the trial court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim by recording a finding of possession of defendant/respondent no.3 over the property mentioned in the counter claim. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2010, the plaintiff/defendant filed appeal no.5 of 2010, which also stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2013.