KIRORI (SINCE DECEASED) Vs. FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION, FARIDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this regular second appeal arises was for permanent injunction whereby plaintiff -Kirori had prayed for restraining defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and ownership of of the suit property, described in para 1 of the plaint, and further restraining defendants from demolishing whole or any part of the suit property in any manner, whatsoever.

(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that plaintiff -Kirori filed suit for permanent injunction with the allegations that he is owner in possession of the disputed property, which was a part of Johar that vested in Gram Panchayat of village Sihi and Gram Panchayat had allotted it to him vide a resolution that stipulated that the appellant shall fill it up. Plaintiff filled it up and constructed four pucca rooms, a pucca verandah and three side boundary walls on it. Thereafter, the suit property came within the limits of Faridabad Complex Administration, Faridabad. Plaintiff alleged about the inclination of the defendants to interfere in his possession in the suit property. Defendant no.1 had also issued notice dated 08.12.1982 to remove the construction otherwise the same would be demolished.

(3.) DEFENDANTS resisted the suit by filing separate written statements. The validity of the impugned notice vide which respondent no.1 had directed the plaintiff to remove the impugned encroachment was reiterated. It was asserted that suit property is a part of public thoroughfare which does not vest in plaintiff. Defendant no.2 challenged the maintainability of suit and also pleaded estoppel.