RAKESH KUMAR Vs. VASDEV MEHTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges judgment and decree dated 28.7.1988 passed by the then Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby judgment and decree dated 27.2.1987 passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit filed by respondent No. 1 was decreed. Counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that the appellant was allotted a khokha by the Municipal Committee on payment of teh bazari as the land, in dispute, vests in the Municipal committee. Respondent No. 1, therefore, had no right to file a suit for removal of the khokha. The trial court rightly dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court has, without considering the rights of the Municipal Committee, to give land on teh bazari, set aside the order passed by the trial court, decreed the suit and directed the appellant to demolish the khokha. Counsel for the appellant also submits that in the absence of any right, title or interest in the land in dispute, the mere fact that respondent No. 1 was owner or in possession of shop No. 60, which adjoins the khokha, is not sufficient to confer a right upon respondent No. 1 to maintain a suit for mandatory injunction. Counsel for the appellant states that the following substantial question of law arises for adjudication:-

(2.) No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(3.) Vasudev Mehta, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, filed a suit for mandatory injunction, to direct defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Rakesh Kumar @ Krishan Kumar and Jagdish Chand, to remove permanent structure shown as 'ABCD' in the site plan appended with the plaint by pleading that a permanent structure has been raised on part of a path, thereby interfering with easementary rights of access, air and light available to the plaintiff.