JITENDER KUMAR Vs. MAAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below dismissing his suit for permanent injunction.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffappellant filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendantrespondents from raising any construction over any specific portion of the suit property fully described in para No.1 of the plaint and also from alienating any specific portion of the suit property on which it was alleged that the parties are co-sharers and the plaintiff-appellant has 2/4 share in the same. It was further averred that the suit property was meant for commercial purposes and the same is abutting to the Nizampur Road and the defendant-respondents were adamant to raise construction over the portion of the suit property abutting the Nizampur Road without getting the same partitioned. Defendant-respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 denied that the suit property was joint property and it was stated that the property was partitioned by the sons of Ram Bhagat, namely, Deen Dayal, Kishori Lal, Raghbir Singh and Brij Lal in the year 1991. It was further averred that during partition the portion of the suit property shown in red, yellow, blue and orange colours respectively in the site plan had fallen to the share of Raghubir Singh, Deen Dayal, Kishori Lal and Brij Lal and the property shown green in the site plan was kept joint for the common purposes. It was further averred that subsequently the sons of Deen Dayal also partitioned the land which had fallen in their share on 30/5/2002 and that the property shown by letters BDEF had fallen to the share of Gajender and Tejender; property shown by letters GHLK shown with yellow colour had fallen to the share of Tejender; property shown with letters JLIK had fallen to the share of Maan Singh; property shown by letters MNOQ had fallen to the share of Gajender while the property shown with letters PORQ had fallen to the share of the plaintiff-appellant i.e. Jitender Kumar.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :