RAM CHANDAR YADAV Vs. PATIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sanjay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants to the effect that place marked as A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H. along with the suit map is the property in possession of the plaintiff. There are certain trees standing on such land are also property of the plaintiff and, therefore, defendants be restrained from causing any type of obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of such property and they be further directed to not to cut such trees or cause any obstruction in the use of the passage or in the flow of the 'Nali'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the learned trial court partly decreed the suit and accepted a fact that the trees which are standing on the land marked in the suit map as A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H. belongs to the plaintiffs and has also directed the defendants to not to cause any obstruction in the use of the passage or of the 'Nali' but remaining suit in regard to the adjacent land which is in fact a 'Sahan' of the plaintiffs has been rejected. It has been held that there is no evidence to show that the land which has been marked as A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H. is land of plaintiffs 'Gohkhohar', 'Pathnaur' or 'Khalihan'.