THARU RAM Vs. JATINDE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant-appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.05.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents for permanent injunction stands decreed.

(2.) Plaintiffs through their mother Smt.Kamlesh Kumari filed a suit for injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from constructing upon or interfering, in any manner, in the vacant land or Khola No.32 owned and possessed by the plaintiff/respondents at village Darsopur Tehsil Pathankot. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondents on the pleadings, that Master Risal Singh son of Bachittar Singh, grand-father of the plaintiffs, was the owner in possession of the suit land marked ABCD as mentioned in the head-note of the plaint, and the other properties including a residential house No.30 and Khola No.32 in abadi deh of village Darospur Tehsil Pathankot. Master Risal Singh died about 11/2 years back, and after his death plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land, and all other property of their grand-father. All the properties were bequeathed in favour of the plaintiffs, by way of registered Will dated 13.11.1979. The case set up was, that the defendant without any right or title over the suit land was trying to raise some sort of construction, and for that purpose had collected bricks and other material near the suit land. The defendant threatened to raise construction with force. The case of the plaintiffs was, that the defendant was requested not to do so, but he finally refused, therefore, necessity arose to file the suit.

(3.) On notice, defendant/appellant appeared, and contested the suit by taking preliminary objection, that the suit was not maintainable in the present form, as the plaintiffs were not in possession of the site in dispute, nor they were in possession of the same before the filing of the suit. The defendant had already constructed pucca room over the suit land before institution of the present suit, and that the construction was complete by 20th June, 1981. Possession of the disputed property was handed over to the defendant, by the vendor i.e. the father of the plaintiff Narinder Singh on 25.3.1981, when he sold the site in dispute by way of registered sale deed dated 25.3.1981. The defendant/appellant claimed possession since the date of purchase. It was also mentioned that the name of father of plaintiffs was Naginder Singh and not Narinder Singh as wrongly shown in the plaint. On merit, averments made in the plaint were denied. It was also denied that Master Risal Singh had died 11/2 years ago, or that after the death of Risal Singh, the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land and other properties. It was admitted that master Risal Singh was grand-father of the plaintiffs. Case of the defendant-appellant was that after the death of Risal Singh, Naginder Singh succeeded to his estate being his only son, who sold the suit land to the defendant by way of registered sale deed, and delivered actual physical possession of the site in dispute. The case of the defendant-appellant was that after taking possession, pucca structure, over the land in suit was constructed before filing the suit. It was denied that any Will was executed by Risal Singh. The authority of Master Risal Singh to execute the Will was also disputed. It was claimed that the Will was fictitious, bogus, void and a nullity. It was also the case set up, that the propounded Will never saw the light of the day. It was not produced before the revenue officer at the time of sanctioning of mutation of the suit land of Risal Singh in the name of Naginder Singh.