PUNAM CHAND Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sirsa was set aside resulting in the decreeing of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) Originally, the suit was filed by Lalit Mohan for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The aforesaid Lalit Mohan had died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on the record. The present respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of the aforesaid Lalit Mohan.

(3.) In the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff, it was stated that he was owner in possession of the property in dispute by way of a judgment and decree dated Nov. 5, 1979. In the year 1980, he had submitted a plan to the Municipal Committee for raising construction but had raised construction even prior to the grant of sanction by the Municipal Committee. Consequently, the Municipal Committee launched prosecution against the father of the plaintiff, namely, Kishan Lal for having raised construction without prior notice to the Committee. The plaintiff claimed that he was in possession of the suit property (Nohra) and that defendant No. 1, Punam Chand (now the present appeallant) had got no connection with the said land. According to the plaintiff, the defendants in connivance with other persons wanted to convert the said land into a temple.