ISMAIL KHAN Vs. SALEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for injunction was filed restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff on the Sehan as well as the passage in question. The plaintiff further prayed that the constructions raised by the defendants should also be removed. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of the house and the Sehan in question which he was using it for decades and that a dispute was raised earlier between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 in the year 1960, which culminated into a settlement in writing dated 20. 4. 1960, on the basis of which, the Sehan was demarcated in two equal portions by fixing a stone in the middle of the Sehan. The north side came into the share of the plaintiff and the south side came into the share of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff further alleged that one door of the defendant No. 1, which opened into the Sehan of the plaintiff was also closed down. The said settlement was duly implemented. The plaintiff alleged that now defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, in connivance with the defendant No. 1, had started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the Sehan, and had raised certain constructions in the Sehan thereby placing impediments in the right of and usage of the passage and the Sehan and had also illegally opened a door in the Sehan. Consequently, the suit for injunction.

(2.) THE defendant No. 1 resisted the suit and filed his written statement. The defendants contended that no settlement of any sort was arrived at in 1960 nor was the Sehan divided between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. The said defendant contended that the plaintiff was neither the owner of the house nor in possession of the Sehan and was living only as a licensee. The defendant further contended that the door of the defendant always existed and was never closed and that the defendant alongwith defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were always in possession for the last fifty years. The defendant categorically denied that the sehan or the passage was being used by the plaintiff. The defendants submitted that he had asked the plaintiff to vacate the premises which annoyed him and, in retaliation had filed a frivolous suit.

(3.) THE defendant Nos. 2 to 4 also filed their written statements and submitted that the plaintiff and the defendants are distant relatives and that the door of the plaintiff which opened in the Sehan, was occasionally used by the ladies of the house on festive occasions and that the Sehan belonged to the defendants and was never being used by the plaintiff. The said defendants further submitted that no settlement had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and further submitted that in any case, the said settlement was not binding upon the defendant Nos. 2 to 4, as they were not parties to the said settlement. The defendants further submitted that the plaintiff was living as a licensee and that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were in possession of the sehan towards the north side whereas the defendant No. 1 were in possession of the Sehan towards the south side.