RATTAN SINGH Vs. RAI VARINDER @ KAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar vide which the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur has been dismissed.

(2.) Appellant-Plaintiff Rattan Singh filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant/respondent to close/remove the iron gage which has been illegally installed at point A to Y, septic tank shown at point Z and N in the site plan attached with the plaint and further directing the defendant to remove the construction measuring 11 x 12 ft., illegally raised by him, shown in red colour in the site plan in the suit property/passage comprising Khewat No.51, Khatauni No.70, Khasra No.324 (4 - 18), situated in the area of village Ramgarh, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

(3.) As per the averment in the plaint, the suit property was joint between him and his brother Bakshi Ram. It was orally partitioned. The property shown in green colour in the site plan fell to the share of the plaintiff and the property marked GHIJDBA shown in blue colour in the site plan fell to the share of Bakshi Ram. This oral partition has taken place in the year 1975. Since, then the plaintiff is using the property in dispute shown in green colour as exclusive owner in possession and has planted trees and vegetables. The same is also being used by him for ingress and outgress of tractor trolley. The defendant has illegally and forcibly installed the septic tank and made the drain in the absence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the civil suit titled as 'Rattan Singh Vs. Varinder'. During the pendency of the said suit, the compromise was effected between the parties. The said compromise was reduced into writing in the shape of agreement dated 19.09.2003 executed between the parties. Defendant had agreed that he will remove the gate, gutter and property measuring 16 x 24 will be used as a passage. But instead of doing so, he has raised the construction of a room at the back of the plaintiff without his consent, due to which, the tractor trolley and other instruments could not passed through the passage. Hence this suit.