SATISH CHANDER Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the averments made in the suit, property measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, is the joint ownership of Taraf Brahmins to the extent of 30 shares out of 90 shares and the appellants, being Brahmins of village Dohar, hold 6 shares therein in the entire Khewat No. 18 as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 1984 -85. According to the appellants, there stood 140 trees (i.e. 60 Rajain trees, 15 Mango trees, 10 Sarinh trees, 15 Dhamman trees and 40 Eucalyptus trees) in the suit property. The appellants, who are joint owners of the land also hold joint interest in the trees standing therein, whereas the defendants were having no title in the suit property except that their names were recorded as tenants at will in Khasra No. 95 of the Jamabandi. According to the appellants, the defendants being tenants have neither any right to cut any tree nor to raise any type of construction or change user of the property except with the consent of the landlord. According to them, the defendants never cultivated the suit property and entries in the revenue record were false and frivolous. Since the defendant respondents threatened to cut and remove the trees, the matter was reported to the Police and then the defendants claimed to have purchased some share of some other co -sharers. However, according to the plaintiff -appellants, even if the defendants were co -sharers, they had no right to remove the trees from the joint land without partition and further had no right to raise any construction without their consent. Hence, necessity arose to file the instant suit. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the suit property was recorded in the revenue record as Taraf Brahmins. Taraf Chang and Taraf Rajputan is the joint property of the proprietors of the village as per their share and the defendants were in exclusive possession of their respective shares and were also having residential houses in the suit property. It was further averred that they have also planted various kind of trees in the land falling to their shares. The defendants belong to Rajput community which had 40 shares in the suit property recorded as Taraf Rajputan. It was further replied that no such type of trees are standing in the suit land. It was further stated that the defendants were co -sharers in the suit property and owners to the extent of their shares and were in exclusive possession and thus, have every right to use the property as they like. It was further replied that the plaintiffs have got no right to interfere in their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

(2.) AFTER considering the evidence on record and the arguments raised, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 04.12.2008 held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed, and thus dismissed the suit.

(3.) STILL not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: