NIHAL SINGH Vs. NAVEEN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgements and decrees dtd. 17/4/2015 and 4/10/2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissing his suit.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondent from encroaching any portion of the suit land or blocking the Rasta. It was averred that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner in possession of the suit land having received the same in a court decree dtd. 14/9/1995 in suit no.8/95 titled as "Nihal vs. Munshi and Ors." and since then the plaintiff-appellant had been in possession of the suit land as owner along with the Rasta. As per the plaintiff-appellant the defendant-respondent had purchased 7/51 share from one Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas vide sale deed dtd. 19/10/2012 to whom the said share was sold by the plaintiff-appellant on 8/5/2000. According to the plaintiff-appellant the defendant-respondent had threatened to encroach upon the portion of the suit land of the plaintiff-appellant and was also trying to encroach and block the Rasta which Rasta was shown in the decree passed in suit no.8/95 titled as "Nihal vs. Munshi and Ors." though the defendant- respondent had no right, title or interest. Hence, the suit. In the written statement the defendant-respondent raised preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits it was stated that the plaintiff-appellant had himself sold the land to Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas vide sale deed dtd. 8/5/2000 and had handed over physical possession of the same and that thereafter the said Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas had sold the land in favour of the defendant-respondent vide sale deed dtd. 19/10/2012 and had handed over the possession to the defendant- respondent. It was submitted that in both the sale deeds it had been mentioned that the possession towards the land of Ghisa Ram had been handed over, first to Ram Niwas s/o Rohtas and then to the defendant- respondent. It was claimed that the defendant-respondent was in peaceful possession of the suit land and had also installed a submersible pump on it.

(3.) The Trial Court framed the following issues :