PAHU MAL Vs. CHHAJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, who lost in both the lower Courts is the appellant in this regular second appeal. The plaintiffs case was that the plot, as detailed in the caption of the plaint was reserved for common purposes of the proprietory body of village Isapur and the same was being used for social gatherings.

(2.) The defendant had tried to raise construction over the same with a view to converting it to his exclusive use and had started digging foundations and thus depriving the plaintiffs and their co-owners the right to use the plot in dispute for common purposes. The defendant contested the suit by pleading that the suit was not competent without the permission of the Advocate General under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He denied that the plot in dispute formed part of the abadi deh of the village and claimed its ownership.

(3.) It is significant to note that the defendant claimed to have purchased this plot from the Rehabilitation Department but he failed to produce any document showing his ownership although he asserted that he got a Sanad with regard to this plot. So the only question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the plot was being used for common purposes by the village proprietory body. The oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs show that the plot in dispute was being used by the residents of the village for common gatherings and that evidence could not be shattered by the defendant.