NAND DASS Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost in both the courts below in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has come up in regular second appeal to this Court.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff-appellant is that originally, his grand-father, Jeona, was owner in possession of the disputed site. On Jeona's death, his estate devolved upon his two sons, Norata Ram and Modan. Modan died about 63 years prior to the filing of this suit, without leaving any issue or wife. His estate including the disputed site devolved upon his brother Norata Ram. Norata Ram also died about 12-13 years prior to the filing of the suit and, thereupon, his son, the appellant, became the owner of the disputed site. The appellant claimed to have become owner of the disputed site by adverse possession also. He wanted to raise construction on the site but the respondents did not allow him to do so. Instead, the respondents threatened to dispossess him therefrom. Thereupon, he filed a suit, claiming permanent injunction against the respondents, restraining them from interfering with his possession over the site.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant had no connection with the disputed site nor he was in its possession. It was further held that the suit was not maintainable also, due to non-payment of costs imposed on him in the earlier suit. The first Appellate Court also decided against him, while maintaining the findings of the trial Court.