LAWS(P&H)-2002-11-40

KISHORI LAL Vs. BABU RAM

Decided On November 22, 2002
KISHORI LAL Appellant
V/S
BABU RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by Kishori Lal - plaintiff appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dated January 28, 1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala and whereby the appeal filed by the defendant Babu Ram was partly accepted. Certain facts may be noticed.

(2.) A suit for permanent injunction was filed by Kishori Lal plaintiff for restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating or transferring or interfering in the possession and use of the Pahi one Karam wide and Khal 112 Karam wide shown in the heading of the plaint. The plaintiff pleaded that he and defendants No. 1 and 2 were real brothers and Nanti Devi defendant No. 3 was the wife of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were separately cultivating their land as per their share. The parties had executed an agreement dated December 24, 1974, whereby Babu Ram defendant No. 1 had agreed to allow the Khal and Pahi to the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3. Plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and 3 had already been using the Pahi and Khal even prior to the agreement. Vide the aforesaid agreement, they had put the aforesaid arrangement into writing. Since defendant No. 1 was bent upon to alienate the Khal and Pahi and enter in possession of the land, therefore the present suit was filed.

(3.) THE learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The defendant Babu Ram felt aggrieved. He filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. The aforesaid appeal was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated January 29, 1980. The learned First Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and restrained the defendant from interfering in the use of Pahi and Khal in dispute by the plaintiff-respondent otherwise than in due course of law. Now the plaintiff has felt aggrieved and approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.