KISHAN LAL Vs. MUNSHI LAL AND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been non suited by both the learned courts below in his suit for permanent injunction, plaintiff has approached this court by way of instant Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned judgement, are that plaintiff presented a suit for permanent injunction for the relief of direction to remove the construction of the property shown in site plan as ABCD in yellow and red colour being Rasta. It was averred that plaintiff was owner of property No.3468 in the abadi of Mohalla Shakarpura, Rewari shown in the site plan in blue colour as mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint. It was further averred that father of the plaintiff purchased the said property vide sale deed No.2223 dated 7.1.1980 and in the site plan attached with the sale deed in South a rasta sare aam was shown. It was further stated that the defendants no.1 to 4 constructed the portion of gali and included it in their property and now the value and utility of the house of the plaintiff is lower down. It is further stated that defendant no.5 colluded with defendants no.1 to 4. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) Notice was served upon the defendants. Defendants no.1 to 4 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of maintainability, locus standi, cause of action etc. On merits, it was denied that in South of the house of the plaintiff there was rasta and it was stated that since last 60-70 years the property belonged to their ancestors and they are residing in the ancestral property. It was denied that any encroachment was made. It was stated that 20 years before defendants repaired their house as the same was very old. It was further stated that on 19.6.1982 the map of the property was sanctioned by muncipal council and if there was a rasta, then municipal council would not sanction the plan of the house. It was further stated that plaintiff had enmity with the defendants because defendants wanted to join their sewer connection but plaintiff made quarrel with the defendants and due to this reason a false suit was presented against them and suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.