PREM CHAND Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, UPLANA, DISTRICT AMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having remained unsuccessful before both the Courts below, the appellant-plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2015 passed by the District Judge, Ambala, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession, was dismissed.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property marked as ABCD in the site plan and towards its western site there was a property of Shri Karam Singh. The defendant had got the property of Shri Karam Singh in exchange of khasra Nos. 36//18/2, 23/1, 23/2 as entered in mutation No.377 and attested in the name of Shri Karam singh vide order dated 28.7.1996. The defendant threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit property and tried to take its possession forcibly and illegally. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property in the year 1996. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 12.1.2008 as the same has become infructuous. The appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 16.1.2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession. Upon notice, the defendant filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded therein that the earlier the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into peaceful possession over the suit property which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 12.1.2008 and subsequent appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 16.1.2009. It was further pleaded that the possession of the suit property was already with the defendant. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterated that of the averments made in the plaint.

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-