DES RAJ Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree, dated November 13, 1979 of affirmation passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Sham Lal brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the construction being made by the plaintiff on the first floor of the rooms shown as red in the attached site plan marked ABCD, fully described in the headnote of the plaint, on the allegations that Daulat Ram was the original owner of the house in dispute. After his death, he was succeeded by Sham Lal plaintiff, Des Raj, Nikka Mal, Madan Gopal, Kalu Ram, Om Parkash, Vasdev and Sakhdarshan Kumar in equal shares, A Partition Deed, Exhibit P2, between the parties was reduced into writing on July 21, 1951 and was registered on November 2, 1951. After partition, the parties came into possession of their respective shares. They raised their constructions on the property in their possession. It was further alleged that the area shown as red and the kitchen falling on the eastern side and two rooms marked 'x' and 'y' falling on the eastern side fell to the share of the plaintiff. As per terms and conditions of the Partition Deed, the parties were at liberty to enjoy their respective shares in any way they liked. After the said partition some of the parties, i. e. Om Parkash etc. raised their construction or made improvements without any objection. Plaintiff had also a right to make improvements in the property which fell to his share. Plaintiff wanted to construct one room on the first floor above the ground floor at the site shown as red in plan. In order to raise construction, he got building plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, Samrala. It was further pleaded that the material was lying there but the defendant illegally and without any right interfered in his affairs and stopped the plaintiff from raising the construction. The defendant was requested not to interfere in the construction but he did not stop. When the matter was reported to the police, a compromise was effected there. When the plaintiff again tried to raise the construction, he was obstructed by the defendant and on his refusal to desist from obstructing him from raising construction on the properly which had fallen to his share, he filed the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed Replication, controverted the pleas taken by the defendant and reiterated those contained in the plaint.