DARBARA SINGH Vs. PARKASH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been non suited by both the learned courts below in his suit for permanent injunction, plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that plaintiffappellant filed the suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be in possession as lessee. It was clear case of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the land in dispute measuring 3 kanals 8 marlas alongwith other land comprised in khewat No.115/114, Khatoni No.301, Rect No.13, Khasra No.5/1 situated within the revenue estate of village Fatuhpur, District Kurukshetra as a lessee under the village Gram Panchayat, Fatuhpur. The plaintiff had sown paddy crop in the land in dispute and the same was harvested recently by the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff had sown Barseem crop in the land in dispute and there existed koops and Goharas belonging to the plaintiff over the land in dispute. Defendant Shri Parkash Mishra who claimed himself to be donee of the land in dispute from village Gram Panchayat was bent upon taking possession of the land in dispute illegally. It was pleaded that the possession of the land in dispute was never given to the defendant. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute detailed in para no.1 of the plaint. It was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed with costs.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement on the plea that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit, that the suit was not maintainable, that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit; that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit by his own acts and conduct; that the suit was bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties as village Gram Panchayat and Matri Bhumi Sewa Mission had not been impleaded as party to the proceedings of the suit. The Governor of Haryana was also a necessary party for the decision of the case.