(1.) This appeal is by the defendant Ravi Dutt Sharma in a suit brought by Sohagwanti and others which was dismissed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar on October 17, 1975 but on appeal decreed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar on February 19, 1979.
(2.) Sohagwanti and others, plaintiffs, widow and children of Amar Nath, filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining Ravi Dutt Sharma and Om Dutt Sharma from entering into possession of property bearing No. 240/1, situated in Gali Jail Wali, Amritsar. Since during the pendency of the suit, the defendants raised construction on the vacant plot attached to House No. 240/1, the suit was amended for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the said wall. The claim was made as owners in possession by the plaintiffs and the defendants had no legal right to interfere with their possession. The vacant area of the house was never acquired under the Land Acquisition Act or under any Scheme by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar. The Trust, therefore, could not transfer the same to the defendants. While contesting the suit, the defendants denied ownership of the plaintiffs over the vacant site. The said site was alleged to be part of Plot No. 77 which vested in the Improvement Trust and later on transferred to the defendants. The possession of the same was also delivered to the defendants and they made construction over the said plot. In this manner, the plaintiffs has no right to cause any interference in their possession over the property in dispute. They further alleged that House No. 240/1 had no vacant open site attached to it. The locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit was challenged. It was asserted that the plaintiffs had not paid price of the house aforesaid to the Government nor any sale certificate was issued in their favour. It was denied that the plaintiff were legal representatives of Amar Nath. Possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed site was also disputed. The plaintiffs did not object to the raising of the construction and they did not approach the Court with clean hands. The plaintiffs denied the allegations of the defendants in the replication and reiterated their stand as taken up in the plaint. The following issues were tried in the suit :-
(3.) Under issue No. 1, the trial Court held that area of the house allotted to Amar Nath was 155 square yards (53-1/2'x26') and 74' x 26'. The site in dispute was held to be not part of House No. 240/1, which measured 20-1/2' x 18 beyond the line 'XY' as shown in the plain, Exhibit P. 1. The remaining vacant site was held to be part of House No. 240/1. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the vacant site in dispute was acquired by the Improvement Trust and transferred to the defendants. Under issue No. 3, the Improvement Trust was held to be a necessary party. Under issue No. 4, it was held that the plaintiffs were not estopped from brining the suit. Under issue No. 5, the plaintiffs were not held entitled to the injunction prayed for. Their possession over the site in dispute was not proved. Under the additional issue, the plaintiffs were held not to be the owners of the property in dispute. Thus, the suit was dismissed.