MOHINDER PARTAP Vs. INDERJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No.1 is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. The plaintiffs' case is that they are in possession of residential houses marked as GHIJ, KLGJ and KLMN respectively, situated within abadi deh of village Nuna Majra, as shown in the site plan. It is alleged that there is a shamlat chowk in the south of the houses of the plaintiffs and the door of their houses opens towards that chowk which is used by them for the purpose of ingress and outgress. The said chowk is brick-paved by the Gram Panchayat, but the defendants, being strong headed persons, were adamant to encroach upon the said chowk by raising construction. In their written statement, defendants had denied the existence of shamlat chowk towards south of the houses of the plaintiffs and also denied dimensions of their houses as shown in the site plan. It is pleaded by them that the street shown as PKZO in their site plan was made of bricks by the Gram Panchayat and the property in dispute is owned and possessed by them since the time immemorial through their male line of descent and it is being used as private courtyard which has been brick-paved by them 20 years back and the doors and windows of their houses open towards the suit property. It is alleged that they have constructed khor and pegs (khuntas) in the suit property for the purpose of tethering their cattle and since there is an acute shortage of the water in the village, they wanted to construct a cemented underground water tank in the suit property.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed replication and on the pleadings of the parties, issued were framed by the Trial Court on 29.06.2002. After considering the evidence available on record, the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

(3.) In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the factual issues before this Court and has also framed questions in respect of misreading of evidence, but during the course of hearing, he has miserably failed to prove the same. The whole case of the plaintiff is that the property in dispute is shamlat chowk which has been brick-paved by the Gram Panchayat, whereas the witnesses appearing on behalf of the Panchayat have specifically denied it. In view thereof, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the basic feature of his suit that the property in dispute is a shamlat chowk which is being maintained by the Gram Panchayat and is being used by the entire village.