MAHA SINGH Vs. RANBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 12298.C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 12299.C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No. 4094 of 2010 Maha Singh plaintiff having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that Pala Singh etc. were owners of the suit property. They exchanged it with a plot of proforma respondent no. 2 Gopi Ram. Thereafter Gopi Ram sold away the suit property to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 27.6.2006 and received the entire sale consideration. The plaintiff became owner of the suit property. However, in the year 2008, defendant no. 1 taking advantage of plaintiff's absence made encroachment on suit portions of the suit property by raising construction thereon. Possession of defendant no. 1 over the suit portions is illegal and unauthorised. Accordingly, plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing defendant no. 1 to remove the said encroachment and construction. The plaintiff also sought relief of possession of the suit portions and also sought ancillary relief of injunction etc. Proforma defendant no. 2 admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and controverted the plaint allegations. Defendant no. 1 alleged that the suit house was owned and possessed by Satpal son of defendant no. 2 Gopi Ram. The plaintiff or defendant no. 2 had no right or claim over any part of the suit house. Alleged agreement by defendant no. 2 in favour of plaintiff is false and inadmissible. The plaintiff is not owner in possession of the suit house. On the contrary, defendant no. 1 is owner in possession thereof. There was also compromise dated 20.9.2006 when previously dispute arose between plaintiff and defendant no. 1. In that compromise also plaintiff admitted ownership and possession of defendant no. 1 over the disputed portions. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.