AMAR NATH Vs. BELI RAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal. Suit of the Plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court but the judgment was reversed by the first appellate Court. The facts as stated in the plaint are as under.

(2.) Plaintiffs alleged that they are in possession of plot shown as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint. A room for residence was constructed by them. The plot was alleged to be evacuee property for which they have already moved to the Rehabilitation authorities for its transfer in their names. It is alleged that since they ,lid not support Sh. Kharati Lal Ex. President of the municipal committee in election, therefore, in order to take revenge upon them Kharati Lal leased out the plot in dispute shown as EFGH in the site plan to Defendant No. 1. It was alleged that the plot EFGH is situated between the metalled road and the municipal drain and the same is a part of public street and the Municipal Committee had no authority to lease out it to Defendant No. 1. Later on Defendant No. 1 started raising construction over the plot EFGH and thereby the passage of the Plaintiffs from their houses to the municipal road was blocked. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from raising, any construction over the site in dispute was filed. In the alternative, it was pleaded that If Defendant No. 1 has bet n able to raise some construction over the site in dispute during the pendency of the suit, a decree for mandatory injunction ordering him to remove the construction be passed.

(3.) Defendants put in appearance and denied that the site in dispute EFGH is a part of public street. Technical objections regarding the valuation of the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and maintainability of tie suit in the present form were taken. It was also pleaded that the site in dispute had been leased out by the Municipal Committee to Defendant No. I registered lease deed dated 4 -7 -1973 for a period of nine year. Lease money upto 31 -3 -1974 is stated to have been deposited by Defendant No. 1 with Defendant No. 2,