BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. MALIK SINGH MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT for permanent injunction filed by M/s. Malik Singh Mehar Singh for restraining the defendants, namely, Bhupinder Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Maninder Singh and their employees, agents and assignees from interfering in any manner in its peaceful possession as owner of the property, as described in the heading of the plaint and from raising any type of construction over any part of the vacant land of the said property, was decreed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Pathankot vide its judgment dated 24.8.1995. The appeal filed by two out of the three defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide its judgment dated 1.12.2000. Hence, the present second appeal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that it had let out its shops situated on the suit property to various tenants. Some portion of the suit property was lying vacant. Portion of the suit property marked by letters K F M N shown as red in the site plan, annexed with the plaint, was in occupation of Public Health Department as tenant, but was recently vacated. The said portion had not been rented out by the plaintiff and thus, lying vacant. Portion marked by letters E K L M shown red in the site plan comprising of double storey residential complex was in self-occupation of the plaintiff except for a portion on the ground floor, where Bhupinder Singh-defendant was living along with his family as licensee, being a close relative of the partners of the plaintiff-firm. The plaintiff had left a portion on the southern side of the suit property as a passage for approach to their adjoining property. However, the defendants were pressing the plaintiff to alienate one of its shops in their favour without any consideration. They had started openly threatening to encroach upon vacant portions of the suit property and raise constructions. As they remain adamant in doing so, the plaintiff firm filed the present civil suit.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed nine issues on the pleadings of the parties. The controversy mainly related to Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which were found interconnected and interlinked and, thus, taken up together for discussion. The said issues are reproduced hereinbelow :-