JHARI Vs. BADAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgement and decree dated 11.1.90 passed by XVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 445 of 87, Jhari versus Badal, by which lower appellate court has affirmed judgement and decree dated 31.7.87 passed by XI Additional Munsif , Allahabad in O.S. No. 268 of 1986 Badal versus Jhari, and thereby both the courts below have decreed plaintiff/ respondent's suit for permanent prohibitary injunction as against appellant/defendant and has affirmed the same.

(2.) In short plaintiff's case is that the suit property mentioned at the end of the plaint belonged solely to the plaintiff who is it's Bhumidhar and is in possession. Consolidation proceedings in the village, where suit property is situated has already been concluded and albeit defendants/ appellants have no concern with the said property, yet there are threatening to grab it and harvest the crops. The said threat was given on 9.3.86, which has given rise to cause of action to file suit for permanent prohibitary injunction.

(3.) Defendant appellants in their Written Statements denied plaintiff's case and pleaded that defendant no. 1 is the owner in possession over the suit property and rest of the defendants have nothing to do with it. Plaintiff has no concern with the suit property and the crop has also been sown by the defendant no.1. Badal @ Parabhu is the son of Suhan and his name was rightly recorded over suit property. After demise of Suhan name of defendant no. 1 was not mutated by the lekhpal and hence a mutation case was filed by defendant no.1 before Naib Tahsildar, Chayal, who, on 21.12.85, ordered for mutating the name of defendant appellant no.1 and accordingly his name was entered in the revenue records. Plaintiff is son of Hannoo and not Suhan nor his name is entered in revenue records. No question of hurling threats to plaintiff arises and during consolidation proceedings name of father of defendant no.1 Badal@Parabhu s/o Suhan was found to have been correctly recorded. No objection or case was filed by the plaintiff during consolidation proceedings and hence suit is liable to be dismissed.