KAMLESH KUMARI Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging judgment and decreed dated 3.9.1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur reversing the findings of the Civil Judge in his judgment and decree dated 31.1.1981.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for deciding the issues raised in the instant appeal are that the plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant as well as defendant-respondents 3 to 9 from interfering in their ownership and possession of the plot marked as 'ABHCMN' in the site plan Exhibit P-3 and also restraining them from raising any construction thereon. In the alternative, the relief of possession of the afore-mentioned plot after removal of any un-authorised construction made thereon was also claimed. The averments made by the plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2 in the suit are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is owner in possession of house shown green in the site plan Exhibit P-3 and plaintiff-respondent No. 2 is owner in possession of the plot shown blue and red in that site plan. The plot was purchased by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 from Gian Chand through a registered sale deed dated 8.4.1964 for a sum of Rs. 600/-. The disputed site marked as 'ABHLMN' on the site plan Exhibit P-3 is claimed to be owned by the plaintiff- respondents. It is claimed that defendant-respondents 3 to 9 are the owners of some land towards the North and have no connection with the property in dispute. The construction of latrine towards the end of the property is claimed to have been made by the plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2. It is alleged that defendant-respondents 3 and 4 in connivance with defendant-respondents 4 to 9 threatened to trespass in the disputed plot illegally and by raising unauthorised construction upon the same. It has further been alleged that there was no sale of adjacent plot by defendant-respondents 3 and 4 and 6 to 9 to the defendant-appellant.

(3.) DEFENDANT -respondents 3 to 7 also filed their written statements raising similar objections that the site plan Exhibit P-3 was incorrect and further claiming that the property in dispute was part of joint property of defendant-respondents 5 to 9. They supported plea of defendant-appellant by reiterating the fact that she has purchased the property from defendant- respondent No. 5 for a valuable consideration and without notice. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as 13 issues which read as under:-