MOHINDER SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dtd. 11/12/2001 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Rupnagar in Civil Appeal No. 132 of 4/12/1999 titled as Darshan Singh v. Mohinder Singh, whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 18/11/1999 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar in Civil Suit No. 235 of 27/7/1988 titled as Mohinder Singh v. Darshan Singh, had been set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per their original nomenclature as given during trial of the suit.

(3.) Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-Mohinder Singh filed the aforementioned suit on the averments that he was owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 469 and 469/1 measuring 0-9 biswas and 0-4 biswas respectively. He had also applied with the Custodian department for allotment of land comprised in khewat No. 69, khatauni No.90, khasra no. 469/2, measuing 10 biswas situated at Village Hussianpur, Tehsil and District Ropar (hereinafter to be referred as "disputed property"). The Custodian department after verifying and confirming the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land had allotted the same to him and a conveyance deed dtd. 27/7/1982 was executed in his favour. The mutation of the disputed property was also sanctioned in his favour and ever since then the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property. He was using it as a courtyard of his house which was abutting the disputed property and used to store cow dung cakes and tie buffalows over the same. He had barbed the disputed site with wire and also used it as 'dher'. Even the windows and doors of his house were opening towards the disputed property. While further claiming that his possession over the disputed property was hostile to villagers including the defendant and he had become owner of the same, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant who had no concern with the disputed property, was bent upon grabbing the same and interfering in his possession. Therefore, he prayed for passing a decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant from interferring in his peaceful possession over the disputed property or from dispossessing him from the same.