JAI RAM Vs. MUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff/Appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide its judgment and decree dated 8.11.2008 and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2011. In brief, the facts of the case are that plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of the property in dispute and alleged that his possession over the property which is a bara is coming since the year 1948-49 where he has been placing his Goharas, cow dung and had also planted Poplar trees. It was further the case of the plaintiff/appellant that defendant who is the sarpanch of the village is taking undue advantage of his post and is now trying to dispossess him from the property in question.

(2.) Upon notice, defendant/respondent filed written statement whereby all the pleas were controverted and it was stated that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the property and in fact the property in question is part of Khasra no. 115 which is a part of old Abadi and reserved by Harijan community of the village for the last more than 100 years. It was further pleaded that the property in question was in possession earlier with the father of the defendant and after his death with the defendant and in fact defendant: has also filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Land Act which already stands decreed.

(3.) Replication was filed wherein the entire contents of the plaint were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied.