GURJANT SINGH Vs. JAGDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal that has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2016 passed by the trial Court whereby suit of the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) for permanent injunction seeking restraint against respondent-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) from interfering into peaceful possession of the appellant qua suit property as described in the head note of the plaint has been dismissed. Appeal preferred against the aforementioned judgment and decree has also been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2017.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that father of the appellant had purchased 19 marla gair mumkin constructed plot from Khasra No.273 and 2 marla of gair mumkin garahs from Khasra No.334 on 17.11.1985 from Nirmal Singh i.e. father of respondents No.4 and 5 through a writing on bahi. The said plot is stated to be used as store by the appellant. The appellant's father also purchased 19 marla gair mumkin land from Khasra No.273 along with 2 marla of gair mumkin garah from Khasra No.334 on 17.11.1985 from respondents No.l to 3 namely Jagdev Singh, Resham Singh and Darshan Singh through a writing on bahi. On the said land, a house has been constructed where appellant along with his family is residing. On 02.04.1989, father of the appellant purchased 2 marla of gair mumkin garahs i.e. half share from Avtar Singh and Gurbaksh Singh comprised in Khasra No.335 (0-4), possession of which was also delivered to father of the appellant and after his death, appellant is owner in possession of the same. Respondents with an intention to encroach upon the said plots threatened to dispossess the appellant, which necessitated him to file the present suit.

(3.) Respondents contested the suit by raising preliminary objections of non-maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it was stated that respondents are still owners in possession of the said plot and father of the appellant never purchased said plots. All other averments had also been denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit.