BASAKHI RAM Vs. SURESH KUMAR ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS Basakhi Ram and Shiv Ram had collectively filed a suit for permanent injunction against Suresh Kumar Sarpanch and others that the defendant be restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the actual physical and peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiffs by constructing a gali through the sehan of the property of the plaintiffs as described in the plaint. It was contended that the defendants had no legal right as no street is there in front of the house of the plaintiffs. They requested the defendants to desist from such illegal construction but of no consequence. Suit was contested by the defendants who claimed that the portion of the property was gali shreaam which vests in Gram Panchayat and they had also passed a resolution on 30. 5. 1994 for the construction of the gali in question to be pucca one.

(2.) ALONGWITH the suit the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an interim injunction to the above effect. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and relying upon various judgments passed the following order:". . . . . . therefore, the applicant Hans Raj is also a necessary party is allowed and both the parties till final decision of their suit by this Court are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the existing position of the property in dispute. Hence the injunction application is accordingly disposed of. "

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that both the Courts below have come to concurrent prima facie view that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in question which is abadi deh and the plaintiff has not prayed for any declaration which would be hit by the provisions of Section 13 of the aforesaid Act. According to the learned counsel the judgment of the First Appellate court suffers from error of jurisdiction and the judgment of the learned trial Court should be upheld.