SITA RAM Vs. BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgement shall dispose of R.S.A No. 2275 of 2004 and 2280 of 2004 as both these appeals arise from judgement and decree dated 13.11.1999, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad, as well as judgement and decree dated 13.11.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad.

(2.) Appellants are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 298 of 1990, titled 'Daya Ram (deceased) through his LRs Vs. Bedi @ Bed Ram and others', and the defendants in Civil Suit no. 313 of 1991, titled 'Bed Ram @ Bhool Ram Bedi Vs. Daya Ram (deceased) through his LRs and others'. Both the civil suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court on 29.01.1999.

(3.) Appellants-Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 298 of 1990, sought the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession or in raising of construction thereon. It is pleaded that Daya Ram (since deceased) and his predecessors-in-interest were the owners in possession of a plot situated within the Abadi Deh of village Fatehpur Biloch, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad as described in the plaint. It is pleaded that the suit property was mortgaged with possession by its owner Suraj Kaur widow of Matru, vide registered mortgage deed dated 15.10.1910 in favour of Harchandi, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The successors-in-interest of Suraj Kaur namely Girraj son of Moti Ram, filed a Civil Suit No. 290 of 1982, which was dismissed on 11.10.1985 by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridabad. It was held in the said suit that the plaintiff become the owner in possession of the plot in question having acquired ownership rights by prescription and lapse of time. Appeal filed by Girraj and others, was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad. It is further stated that their exists a 'Keekar' tree in the said plot. The plaintiff wish to raise construction therein, but the defendants being head strong persons were bent upon to interfere in the possession and construction sought to be raised by the plaintiff on the plot in question. It is pleaded that the defendants had no right, title or interest to interfere in the possession and construction to be raised by the plaintiff. Despite request, defendants did not desist from their acts. Therefore, the suit was filed.