ANANT LAL Vs. CHANAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties some length. While assailing the judgment and decree of the learned Ist Appellate Court dated 29.10.1979, the learned counsel for the appellants contends : (i) the relief granted to the respondents herein is beyond the scope of the plaint; (ii) the relief of mandatory injunction was not even prayed but still has been allowed by the learned trial Court; and (iii) the learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the merit of these 3 contentions reference to basic facts would be necessary. Plaintiff Chanan Dass and another had filed a suit against Anant Lal and others, stating that the defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the plaint in khasra numbers 2781/4/1 and 2781/4/4; and further if the defendants succeeded to raise may construction on the suit land or any portion of the plots in question then prayed for mandatory injunction for demolishing the said construction. The suit was contested by the defendants who denied in their written statement that plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and prayed that the suit should be dismissed.

(3.) THE contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are mis-conceived. It may be noticed that in the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit, no averment was even made that defendants were owners in possession of the suit land on which they were trying to raise construction. Undisputedly, they admitted the title of the plaintiffs. In other words, no title was claimed by the defendants over the suit land. The trial Court had appointed the Commissioner who had visited the spot and submitted his report exhibit- LC/4. This report of the Local Commissioner in conjunction with the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, was appreciated by the learned trial Court and it had come to the conclusion that plaintiffs were the owners of the land in dispute and were entitled to prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction. These are, primarily, the findings on facts arrived at by the learned trial Court below should normally be not interfered by this Court unless and until these findings are so perverse that no reasonable person upon appreciation of evidence on record could come to such conclusion. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another, 1999(3) Supreme Court Cases 573.