SUKHA SINGH Vs. YASHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ferozepur, has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff had instituted the suit for mandatory injunction for issuance of directions to the defendants to handover the physical and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on the basis of the previous entries in the Cantonment Board record depicting his possession thereupon. As per the case of the appellant-plaintiff, he was the occupier of the suit land for a period of about 20 years upto May 2006. He constructed a Gurudwara Sahib over the suit land by incurring expenses from his own pocket and was performing the duties of Pathi. He was regularly serving at Gurudwara Sahib. He raised the construction in the area measuring 33 feet x 13 feet i.e. 432 Sq. Feet and was also residing therein in two rooms and the courtyard. He had filed an appeal challenging the order of Estate Officer, Cantonment Board, Ferozepur, under Sec. 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 before the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority. The said appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 09.02.2004. The name of the plaintiff-appellant is recorded in the records of the Cantonment Board. He is also having the ration card and voter identity card, which shows the address of the plaintiff as the property in dispute. In the revenue record also the possession of the plaintiff has been depicted. He suffered an electric shock in the year 2004 and remained admitted in the hospital. During the absence of the plaintiff, the defendants forcibly occupied the suit property without any legal right in connivance with the officials of the Cantonment Board. Hence this suit.

(3.) The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn against defendants No. 1 to 3. The suit was contested by defendants no. 4 and 5, but subsequently, they were also proceeded against ex-parte.