SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. DHAN DHAN BAPU KUMBH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No.1 is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs/respondent respondents No.1 and 2 herein, for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant No.1 from illegally and forcibly:

(2.) The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before efore the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as 'the defendant no.1' and the respondents as 'the plaintiffs'.

(3.) The brief facts of the case as put forth in the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is a juristic person being the registered Management Committee managing the affairs of plaintiff No.1. Surinder Pal Verma is the President and Paramjit is the Vice President of the said Committee. Vide resolution dtd. 11/10/2009 passed by the Management Committee, the President and Vice President were authorized to file the suit on behalf of plaintiff No.1. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession as owners/co-sharers sharers in land measuring 0-14 marlas and marked as ABCD shown in read colour in the site plan measuring 14 marlas bearing Khata No.154/222, Khasra Nos.18//16/4 (0 (0-14) as per Jamabandi for the year 2006-07situated 200 situated in the area of village Garhi, Tehsil Garhshankar the suit property. On the suit property, there are two rooms Garhshankar/ kutia and submersible pump constructed and installed by followers of plaintiff No.1. Religious pooja place (dhoona) is also in existence since the time of Bapu Kumbh Dass Ji. It was further pleaded that the defendant No.1 is co-sharer sharer in the land of joint Khata whereas defendants No.2 to 4 are strangerss and they have no right title or interest in the suit property. Further averment was made in the plaint that for the last about one week, the defendants defendants in connivance with each other were threatening the plaintiffs through members of the Committee that they will forcibly interfere into the lawful, peaceful and exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants ndants threatened that they will demolish the existing constructions and submersible pump and the Dhoona illegally and forcibly. The said threats of the defendants are wrong, illegal and against law and facts; and the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable los losss and injury in case the defendants succeed. The defendants were asked many times to refrain from their activities, however, to no avail. With these averments, the suit was filed.