PRAHLAD Vs. CHANDRA BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amar Nath Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri H.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This second appeal has been filed by the defendants being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 26.08.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2015 ( Prahlad and Others vs. Chandra Bhan and Others ), dismissing the appeal of defendants and affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadohi at Gyanpur arising out of Original Suit No. 300 of 1999.

(3.) Admitted facts leading to the present appeal are that plaintiff- Chandra Bhan son of Ranjit had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant nos. 1 to 12 claiming that plaintiff along with defendant nos. 10 to 12 are sons of Ranjit. Ranjit was brother of Surya Bhan and Sarju. Plot no. 446 in regard to which permanent injunction was sought is a property of Ranjit and the plaintiff and defendant nos. 10 to 12 being son of Ranjit are owner of plot no. 446 and having transferable right over the said property and as such their names are mentioned in the revenue records. It is also submitted that defendant nos. 1 to 9 and 13 have no interest, title or connection with survey no. 446 which has been marked as A, B, C and D in the plaint map. It was further averred that on survey no. 446, plaintiff and defendant nos. 10 to 12 have their rooms in which they are residing and carrying on their other activities. Defendant nos. 1 to 9 and 13 are persons with dubious antecedents and are capable of using their muscle power and are trying to cause construction on plot no. 446 by demolishing the construction raised by the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 10 to 12. With the aforesaid intention to dislodge the plaintiff and defendant nos. 10 to 12, on 17.05.1989, defendant nos. 1 to 9 came on the disputed property and started carrying out the measurement and trying to dig foundation and when plaintiff prevented them from doing so, then they indulged in hooliganism giving rise to cause of action to file the suit in question.