JIYA LAL Vs. MUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jiyal Lal filed suit for permanent injunction against Muni Lal, Kewal Krishan Pardhan, Harbans Singh and Arya Samaj Mandir/School, Budhlada through Dwarka Dass restraining the latter from interfering with his ownership and possession of house/site as described in the head note of the plaint situated in the abadi of Ward No. 4 within the municipal limits of which he has been in possession for the last more than 15 years as also from dispossessing him from the house/site shown in red lines in the plan attached to the plaint and also from demolishing the construction of three rooms/huts lying constructed there. It was alleged in the plaint that he is owner in possession of the site for the last more than 15 years where he has constructed three rooms/huts and is residing with his family. He has obtained an electric connection from Punjab State Electricity Board. He has also built up a toilet there. He has planted trees and flowers. It was alleged in the plaint that defendants are bent upon amalgamating the house/site in suit into the school premises as also to demolish rooms/huts constructed by him there. Alongwith the plaint, they moved an application for the grant of temporary injunction to the desired effect.

(2.) Defendants resisted the prayer of the plaintiff urging that one Sunder Lal son of Karta Mal had donated portion ABCD shown in the site plan Annexure A to Arya Samaj Mandir/School by way of registered Hibanama dated 12.5.1930. At present, Krishna Lal legal heir of Sunder Lal donated the suit land, which is a piece of land marked as AEFG in the site plan shown in Annexure A to the Arya Samaj Mandir/School. Pursuant to Hibanama dated 21.8.1997, Arya Samaj Mandir/School (defendant No. 4) came in possession of land shown by letters AEFG. Earlier with the consent of the legal representative of Sunder Lal, Arya Samaj Mandir/School had constructed a toilet which is shown as Mark-L in the portion of the land with the laying of pacca toilets for school children opening through wall A-C of the school was closed. General public used to visit that place to worship 'peepal' tree standing there, so respondent No. 4 had built up a platform under the tree since long. It was denied that there is any room/hut in the said portion of the suit property. There is no access to the said place. It was urged that the plaintiff after constructing huts towards wall E to A of the site plan Annexure A filed this suit. Towards north east side of the portion AEFG falls the land of Darshan Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Amritpal consisting of khasra No. 326/2. Kacha huts were constructed by said Darshan Kumar etc. for tethering their cattle and for providing shelter to the cattle. It was further urged that this suit was filed by the plaintiff with the intention to grab site AEFG.

(3.) Vide order dated 31.3.1998, Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mansa allowed temporary injunction to the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the disputed property otherwise than in due course of law.