KARTAR SINGH DEAD Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 23. 3. 1979 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15. 10. 1975 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, II Class, Jalandhar in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Gram Panchayat Laraoi, through its Sarpanch Darshan Singh, and Darshan Singh, son of Kartar Singh, in his individual capacity filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from using the land in dispute described in the heading of the plaint for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was given. In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree of possession of the land in dispute. According to the plaintiffs, plamtiff No. 1, Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute which was given to Charan Dass Chela Saran Dass to enjoy its usufruct. Charan Dass mortgaged this land with defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 2 and 3. Charan Dass who was the malguzar in respect of the land in dispute died intestate without leaving any heir and thereby the land in dispute remained in the ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to accept the mortgage amount of Rs. 60/- and redeem the land and to give possession of the land in dispute to the plaintiff but defendants 1 to 3 refused to redeem the land and they connived to play mischief by joining hands with defendants 4 to 7 who under the garb of religious tinge threatened to use the land in dispute for the purpose other than that for which it was given by the owner. The defendants started raising construction over the land in dispute and as such the matter was brought to the notice of the police. Action was taken by the police against the defendants and it was agreed upon by the defendants that they would not further make any construction on the land in dispute and they would restore the land in dispute to its original position as it was before 19/20. 1. 1973. However, defendants have again started collecting building material on the land in dispute and have threatened to use it for the purpose other than for which it was given. Therefore, the defendants are liable to be restrained from using the land in dispute for any purpose other than for which it was given and in the alternative, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession.

(3.) FROM the Above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court;