JHANDU (DIED) Vs. KRISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants-appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 3.9.1986 was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.

(2.) The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction. Briefly stated, the case of he plaintiff is that he is owner in possession of the suit land since the time of his forefathers; that he has been using the suit land by tethering his cattle and storing fuel and has also installed a toka machine on the suit land; that the plaintiff has constructed a cattle shed and a khurli about 20 years ago; that previously the plaintiff used to utilise the suit property for storing cowdung cakes, tethering cattle and storing fuel etc. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that he has also stored about 3000 bricks for the purpose of raising construction on the suit property, as he is the sole owner of the same; that he has been using the suit property as the exclusive owner without any hindrance from any corner for the last about 35/40 years and, prior to that, it was in possession of his ancestors; that Jhandu, defendant No. 1, had been given his due share out of the other family property along with other brother and the other defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and nephews of the plaintiff-, and that the defendants have no right, title or interest a the suit property but, they being high-handed and influential persons, want to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land without any rhyme and -reason. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit property or interfering with his construction work over the suit property or dispossessing him from the suit land, be passed in his favour and against the defendants-appellants.

(3.) The defendants-appellants filed a written statement, controverting all the assertions of the plaintiffs-respondent and submitted that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit; that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel and he is estopped from filing the present suit by his on act and conduct; and that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form. The defendants-appellants have specifically denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and contended that the plaintiff has no concern whatsoever with the suit property; that there is no toka machine in existence at the spot, as alleged by the plaintiff, that they are in possession of the suit property and have constructed their Khurlis about 20 years ago and ire tethering their cattle there; that the plaintiff got constructed no khurli on the spot; that the boundaries given by the plaintiff are not correct and the correct boundaries have been given in the site plan attached with the written statement; that about 3000 bricks lying on the spot were purchased and stored by the defendants and the plaintiff has no concern with the same; that no family settlement or partition, as alleged by the plaintiff, was ever arrived at between the parties; that, in fact, the plaintiff (brother of defendant No. 1) is residing in a separate house within the abadi deh and the defendants are residing in the suit property; and that the defendants got constructed the houses over the suit plot as well as the boundary wall on the plot, in dispute.