SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. KASHMIRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') is to the judgment dated 6.10.1995 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana accepting the appeal of the defendant-respondents in which judgment and decree dated 9.2.1994 was impugned. In her judgment and decree dated 9.2.1994, the Addl. Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and against the defendant-respondents restraining defendants respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. The defendant respondents were further restrained from raising construction over the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff- petitioner forcibly and illegally from same. The District Judge set aside the judgment and decree on various issues and remanded the case back.

(2.) FACTS of the case essential for determining the issue raised in the present petition are that the plaintiff petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 302 on 29.5.1985 for permanent injunction against defendant-respondents for restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession and raising construction over the suit land. Further prayer was made restraining defendant-respondents from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally. The basis of permanent injunction sought by the plaintiff petitioner was a sale certificate executed in his favour on 20.7.1965 by the Central Government. It was claimed on the basis of the aforementioned sale certificate that the land in dispute has been purchased by him. On the threat of encroachment upon the land by the defendant-respondents by raising construction, the plaintiff petitioner filed a suit with the prayer of permanent injunction.

(3.) ON Issue No. 2, the Civil Judge held that the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to permanent injunction as the defendant-respondents had tried to interfere in the possession of the suit land. On the basis of the afore- mentioned findings, the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was decreed.