MAI DAYAL Vs. KHUSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this regular second appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dated 8.9.1980. While accepting the appeal, learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1980 rendered by Subordinate Judge, vide which suit of plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff over Gher situated at Khand Mandi, Meham, District Rohtak, was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY put the case of plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) is that he is owner in possession of Gher situated at Khand Mandi, Meham, District Rohtak, details whereof have been given in para No. 1 of the plaint, which was purchased by him on 30.8.1977 from Amar Nath Mahajan vide registered sale deed, registered on even date. He constructed boundary walls on the said plot in February, 1978 and is using the same as owner in possession. Defendants-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') without any right, title or interest in the said Gher were interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the said Gher and have also placed some bricks on 16.5.1978 with evil design to take possession of the same. When requests made by him brought no result, he filed suit for the relief, as already indicated above. The matter was contested by defendants, who in the written statement pleaded that boundaries of Gher had been given wrongly and that Amar Nath Mahajan had no right, title or interest in the Gher and, therefore, question of selling the same to the plaintiff does not arise. Further, the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff was a sham document and as such was not binding upon defendants. They pleaded that they were actually owners and in possession of the Gher in dispute and that their bricks were lying at the spot for the last so many years. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-

(3.) THE judgment relied upon by learned Counsel in Municipal Committee, Pehowa v. Harsarup, 2000(1) RCR (Civil) 402, would not come to the rescue of the defendants, as in the case aforesaid the plaintiff had based his case on site plan sanctioned by the Municipal Committee and was not able to prove as to how he became owner of the property. It was the case of the Municipal Committee that plaintiff had obtained sanction by misrepresentation and in connivance with some employees of the Committee. In these circumstances, it was held in Harsarup's case (supra) that "once plaintiff failed to establish about acquisition of title with respect to site in dispute and managed sanction by misrepresentation, the Committee would have right to withdraw such sanction or to demolish any encroachment made by the plaintiff."