VISHAL MANI UNIYAL Vs. KUSHLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff/appellant'sSecond Appeal, wherein, he has questioned the judgment dtd. 14/1/2015, as rendered by the 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in First Appeal No. 76 of 2013, Smt. Kushla Devi Vs. Vishal Mani Uniyal, by virtue of the judgment as rendered by the Appellate Court, the Appeal was allowed and as a consequence thereto, the judgment of the Trial Court dtd. 18/4/2013, as passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun, District Dehradun in Civil Suit No. 348 of 2003, Vishal Mani Uniyal Vs. Kushla Devi, has been set aside and as a consequence thereto, the Suit preferred by the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly put, the plaintiff/appellant'scase before the Court below was that he was the purchaser of a property, from its predecessor owner by sale deed dtd. 21/1/1983, more particularly, defined at the foot of the plaint, bearing Municipal No. 283, Ballupur, Pratham (Aakashdeep Colony), Dehradun, bounded by in the North, property of defendant; in the South, the property of the plaintiff/appellant; in the East, other properties and in the West a passage. Ever since thereafter the purchase, he has raised a construction of his house and is residing there with his family. His case is that the defendant/respondent, who had a property on the northern side of the property of the plaintiff /appellant, had made efforts to encroach on 3 feet wide strip of land, which was left by the plaintiff/respondent beyond the boundary of his house, which he has contended that it was part of his property covered by the sale deed, which he left vacant, thereafter, has constructed his boundary wall and had left the vacant strip of land for drainage purpose, which was being encroached by the defendant/respondent by throwing garbage in the said space of land left by the plaintiff/appellant.

(3.) In the suit, in question, the plaintiff/appellant has initially sought a decree of permanent injunction as against the defendant/respondent, seeking a restraint from interference over the property, which has been described at the foot of the plaint, which constituted to be the part of the property which was purchased by the plaintiff/appellant, by virtue of the sale deed dtd. 2/1/1986. Out of the said property as purchased by the plaintiff/appellant, the property, which fell in dispute, was the property as described by figure "ABCD" as shown in the plaint map. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the Suit on 27/6/2003 and has sought the following reliefs :- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]...