SURJIT KAUR Vs. JASPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 4371 and 4372 of 2004 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

(2.) Two separate suits were filed in the trial Court, one by Jaspal Singh and Narinder Singh (respondents in the appeals) for permanent injunction and the other by Surjit Kaur (appellant in both the appeals) for mandatory injunction. The respondents had prayed that the appellant be restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession over a house fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, whereas the appellant had prayed that the respondents be directed to vacate and hand back the possession of the house shown in the green portion of the site plan attached and as detailed in the head note of the plaint.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondents claimed to be the owner in possession of the house in question by virtue of declared dated 7.12.1979 of the Civil Court passed in Suit No 346 of 12.11.1979 and averred that ever since, they are in possession of the suit property They further averred that the appellant was given one room, bathroom, kitchen and open yard shown in the site plan for her residence where she was residing as a licence and during the pendency of the suit, the appellant had forcibly put a lock on their lock and, therefore, they were entitled to get the lock removed. They alleged that the appellant was threatening to dispossess them even though she had no right, title or interest in the suit property.