LAWS(P&H)-2017-10-89

YASEEN Vs. LALDIN

Decided On October 30, 2017
YASEEN Appellant
V/S
Laldin Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal filed by one of the plaintiffs who is also the successor-in-interest of the other plaintiff-Jahangir, against the concurrent judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below. For convenience the parties shall be referred here as the plaintiff and defendant as they were described in the original sheet.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, whatsoever, in the peaceful, actual, physical and cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 10 kanals 10 marlas bearing Khewat No. 114, Khatauni No. 127, Khasra No. 19//11/2 (5-16), 19//20 (4-14), situated within the revenue estate of Village Islamgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. It was claimed that the Jamabandi for the year 1999- 2000 shows the plaintiffs to be in possession. It was further claimed that originally the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff by Wakf Board when it was Banjar-Kadeem but after spending huge amount of money the same was made worth cultivation by the plaintiffs. Now the defendants are interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) Upon notice, the private defendants had filed written statement taking routine preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the suit property was laying vacant and is being used as burial ground by the residents of the village. It was further alleged that initially the suit property was lying waste but it was given on lease to Moju son of Barkhu. However, when the residents of the village objected to its cultivation then the Wakf Board decided to reserve this property as a burial ground. Therefore, notification was issued for reserving this property as a burial ground. It was further claimed that they being the residents of village have every right to use this property as burial ground. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs want to take forcible possession of the suit land.