VISHAL MANI UNIYAL Vs. KUSHLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since this second appeal and the crossobjection, as aforetitled, have arisen out of the judgment and order dated 14.1.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 76/2013, hence are being taken up together for adjudication.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the parties have submitted their rival contentions at the stage of admission itself. It appears that the plaintiff Vishal Mani Uniyal purchased a plot of land on 21.1.1986 ad measuring 277 sq. mt. His neighbour Smt. Kushla Devi purchased a plot of land ad measuring 146.38 sq. mt. Towards north of the plot so purchased by the plaintiff. Plot of Smt. Kushla Devi is at somewhat upper level of the land from that of the plaintiff. Both constructed their houses on their respective piece of land so purchased by them.

(3.) It transpires that in between two plots of land, a small piece of land ad measuring almost 180 square ft. was somehow left which was being used as a water drainage (nail) having the depth of two feet. The plaintiff presented the Original Suit No. 348/2003 against Smt. Kushla Devi seeking the prohibitory as well as the mandatory injunction to the effect that Smt. Kushla Devi be asked to remain restrained from interfering in the exclusive possession and use of such 180 sq. ft. by the plaintiff. It was further prayed that the defendant be also directed to remove the debris which has been left either by herself or her husband Ratan Mani Nautiyal at the time of construction of their home or some other time. The suit was decreed on 18.4.2013 by the learned Trial Judge, whereagainst the first appeal no. 76/2013 was preferred by Smt. Kushla Devi and such appeal was dismissed, as indicated above. Learned First Appellate Court held that the disputed land ad measuring 180 sq. ft., as aforestated, had been proven to be the land of State Government and none of the litigating parties can claim the ownership on such land. Accordingly, the defendant was directed to remove the garbage put by her on such land within 30 days and the State Government was directed to take the possession of such piece of land from the claimed possession of either of the litigating parties. This judgment of the First Appellate Court has been challenged by way of filing this second appeal and the cross-objection.