SADHU RAM Vs. DIMPLE KUMAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Sadhu Ram appellantplaintiff No.1, Pawan Kumar and Ashok Kumar sons of Kunj Lal proformarespondent Nos.3 and 4-plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 (for brevity "the plaintiffs") filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Dimple Kumar and his mother Padma wife of Gian Chand respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants (for short "the defendants") from raising any type of construction or making improvement in any manner in the property in dispute, inter-alia pleading that the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners and in possession to the extent of 1/8th share each in the property in question, situated within the revenue limits of village Nehianwala, Tehsil and Distt.Bhatinda. The application for partition of the suit property between the parties was stated to be pending before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. According to the plaintiffs that the defendants with malafide intention to cheat them, are trying to raise construction on the disputed portion, in order to get undue benefit in the partition proceedings by showing their exclusive possession. They asked the defendants not to do so, but in vain, which necessitated them to file the suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in the manner indicated hereinabove.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, raising certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, concealment of facts, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had earlier filed civil suit bearing No.659 of 19.12.2003 regarding the same very property, which was dismissed with costs by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), by virtue of judgment dated 7.6.2005 (Ex.D1). The appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the appellate Court, by means of judgment and decree dated 11.6.2005 (Ex.D2 and Ex.D3) respectively. The regular second appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed as well by the High Court, vide judgment dated 7.10.2005. It was claimed that defendant No.1 has already sold his share to defendant No.2 and he is left with no share in the property in dispute and she (defendant No.2) is in exclusive possession of her property. In all, according to the defendants that plaintiffs had got no right, title and interest in the suit property. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for adjudication for proper adjudication of the case. In order to substantiate their respective pleaded cases, the parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence.