SADASUKH Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar, dated November 20, 1965, by which the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Subordinate Judge, dismissing the suit, was affirmed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit, for permanent injunction for the removal of encroachment by the defendants-respondents on a Public Chowk in front of the temple of Bishnois, situated in village Mohammadpur Rohi and causing obstruction to the Passage used by the villagers, in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar. It was averred inter alia that the Chowk was reserved for common purposes of the villagers such as public gatherings and marriage parties and that the defendants-respondents had made encroachment on a portion of the said Chowk as shown by letters ABCD in read colour in the plan attached to the plaint. it was further averred that the alleged encroachment had been made in collusion with the members of the village Panchayat. These pleas were controverted by the defendants-respondents in their written statement. Inter alia, it was contended that they had constructed wall on their own land and that the plaintiffs-appellants had no locus standi to file the suit in the absence of the village Panchayat as well as without alleging and proving special damage. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) I have been taken through the evidence produced by the plaintiffs-appellants. From the statements of Gobind Ram, P.W. 1, Mani Ram, P.W. 2, Kanshi Ram, P.W. 3, Mohan Lal, P.W. 4, and Hardas P.W. 5, it is clear that each of these witnesses has given different dimensions of the said Chowk. Further, their statements regarding the dimensions of the Chowk are in conflict with the dimensions as given in the plan, Exhibit P.1, produced by the plaintiffs-appellants alongwith their plaint. Even Mohan Lal, defendant-respondent, while appearing as P.W. 4, was not in a position to state as to what was the exact length and breadth of the Chowk before the alleged encroachment. In view of these conflicting statements, both the Courts below came to the firm conclusion that it was not possible to conclude that the defendants-respondents had made any encroachment on the land comprised in the common Chowk. I have not been able to find anything in the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs-appellants to differ from this concurrent finding of fact.