SAVITRI DEVI Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of 154 days delay in refiling the appeal is allowed. The delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA-1090-2020

(2.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff No.2 (plaintiff-appellant) against the judgements and decrees dtd. 24/5/2016 and 22/4/2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) The suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs - Smt. Mitlesh Devi (plaintiff No.1-respondent No.2 herein) and Smt. Savitri Devi (plaintiff No.2-appellant herein) - averring that they were the owners in possession of the suit land and had raised a boundary wall around it by spending a huge sum of money. Though the defendant-respondent No.1 had no concern with the suit land but he was forcibly bent upon to interfere in the peaceful use and possession of the plaintiffs by ousting them after taking forcible possession and raising construction as well as alienating the suit land. Though the plaintiffs had repeatedly requested the defendantrespondent No.1 not to interfere in their peaceful use and possession of the suit land by way of raising construction and taking forcible possession, but to no avail. Hence, the suit. The suit was contested by the defendantrespondent No.1 who in his written statement raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action and concealment of true and material facts, estoppel, etc. The defendant-respondent No.1 set up his ownership over 100 sq. yards out of the suit land vide sale deed dtd. 30/7/2012 got executed through court in execution of a decree for specific performance. The competency of the vendors of the plaintiffs to sell themthe suit land was also challenged. No replication was filed by the plaintiffs.