GURMIT SINGH Vs. KAILASH KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the Courts below duly recapitulated and discussed the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties in detail, therefore, there appears to be no necessity to again reproduce and repeat the same in this context. However, crux of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that Gurmit Singh son of Shingara Singh Appellant -Plaintiff (for brevity "the Plaintiff") filed the suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining Kailash Kaur wife of Dalip Singh and others Respondent -Defendants (for short "the Defendants") from interfering in any way in his (Plaintiff) and his brother Jarnail Singh's peaceful possession and also from raising any type of construction over the property in dispute.

(2.) THE case set up by the Plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that Punjab Wakf Board was the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 30 measuring 7 kanals 7 marlas, situated in the area of village Kalyanpur, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur. The portion depicted by letters ABCD in the site plan out of this land was claimed to be in cultivating possession of the Plaintiff and his brother Jarnail Singh as lessees. The Defendants were stated to have no concern or right in the suit property, but they are threatening to raise construction over it. The another suit titled as "Kailash Kaur and Ors. v. Shingara Singh and Ors." filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 against the Plaintiff was pending in the Court at Dasuya. In all, according to the Plaintiff that he alongwith his cousin brother Jarnail Singh was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute as lessees, but the Defendants are threatening to raise construction over it without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the Plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

(3.) LEVELLING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the Defendants that the Plaintiff has already constructed the house on his portion and he has got no right, title or interest in the land in dispute, which is in their (Defendant Nos. 1 to 4) possession. 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.