BHAWAN SINGH Vs. DHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant for the purposes of challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 28/5/2011 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), whereby, the plaintiff/respondent, of Civil Suit No. 52/2004 'Dhan Singh vs. Bhawan Singh' who had preferred a suit for a decree of permanent injunction, which was decreed in his favour, as well as, it is also preferred against the judgment dtd. 20/2/2014, as passed by the Additional District Judge, Almora in Civil Appeal No. 18/2011 'Bhawan Singh vs. Dhan Singh', wherein, the defendant/appellant had put to challenge, by virtue of which the Appeal preferred by Bhawan Singh under Sec. 96 of CPC was also dismissed thereby, concurrently affirming the judgment and decree as rendered by the learned Trial Court granting a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) To be precise, the controversy in the second appeal, which has been pleaded and as placed by the appellant before this Court, is in relation to the property, which has been more particularly described at the foot of the plaint constituting Khasra Nos. 7824, 7825 and 7826. A reference of Khasra No. 7823, becomes necessary to be considered at this stage because the defendant/appellant claims that the said khasra exclusively belongs to him and he stands to be the recorded in the revenue records as owner of the property. Be that as it may, but as far as the cause of action which gave rise to the present controversy which emanating from the Suit, which was instituted on 6/11/2004 by the plaintiff/respondent was in relation to Khasra Nos. 7824, 7825 and 7826, situated at village Devli, Patti Khasparza, Tehsil and District Almora (hereinafter to be called as property in dispute).

(3.) At the very initial stage of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that as per the revenue records, which is available on record, the defendant/appellant stands recorded only as against Khasra No. 7823, and if at all he continues to hold the ownership it would be in relation to the said property, because even according to the plaintiff/respondent's case the said land, i.e. Khasra No. 7823 which is claimed to be belonging to the defendant/appellant, according to case of parties to the second appeal, already stood acquired in the acquisition proceedings for the construction of the road but, as far as the present second appeal is concerned, this court is not concerned with regards to the plot on. 7823 as it is not the subject matter in dispute. The controversy herein as complained of is the act of encroachment which has made by the defendant/appellant over the land lying in Shreni 1kha belonging to the plaintiff/respondent in Khasra No. 7825 in particular.