SHIV DAYAL Vs. RAILU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal whose suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the house No. 559/W-7, situated at Panipat was owned by one Lekh Raj, their predecessor-in-interest who died in 1958. The said suit was stated to be the property of Joginder Singh, plaintiff. It was stated that the blind alley situated on the west of this property ended at points A.G. and towards the east of A.G. is the property owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that house No. 556/W-7 was situated on the north and the west of the plaintiffs' property and the defendants wanted to make an opening in their southern wall A.B. on the contention that on the south of A.B. was a street whereas it was not a street and was the property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any way with their exclusive use of the property and the right of privacy of their property and restraining the defendants from opening any apertures in the southern wall of their house. In the written statement, the defendants denied that the site, in dispute, was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, as alleged. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs were estopped by their act and conduct from bringing the suit. It was also denied that the suit in dispute, was for the exclusive use of the plaintiffs. The trial Court found that the site, in dispute, was not owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, as alleged. It was also held that the site, in dispute, is not only meant for use of the plaintiffs alone as claimed. In view of these findings, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In appeal, the only findings under issue No. 1 were challenged. The learned Additional District Judge after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the suit property was a vacant site and, therefore, it followed that it would be deemed to be in possession of the true owner. Learned counsel for the appellants could not show any iota of evidence to prove that the site in suit was in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit was maintained.

(3.) At the time of motion hearing, the appeal was admitted as it was contended that there was misreading of the document, Exhibit P.3.