MAJOR SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal that has been seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2012 of the Court below whereby the suit of the plaintiff respondent for permanent injunction stands decreed which has subsequently been affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the plaintiff-respondent ( for short 'the respondent') filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-appellant (for short 'the appellant') for making any construction in property measuring 01 Kanal - 03 Marlas, bearing Khasra No. 1147/1-3, Khatauni No. 522, Khewat No. 250, situated in village Tehna, Tehsil and District Faridkot. In fact, Malkit Singh, the original owner of the suit property died leaving behind the respondent Paramjit Singh, Tej Kaur, his widow, Nachhattar Singh and Gurlal Singh, two other sons and daughter Chhinderpal Kaur, who inherited the suit property in equal shares. Mutation No. 3446 was also sanctioned accordingly. Nachhattar Singh, the brother of the respondent, sold his share through a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2009 to the appellant herein. He sold a specific portion of the suit property which had some construction thereon. As the appellant started to raise construction, a suit was filed by the respondent seeking an injunction to restrain him from raising any construction without partition while also alleging that the sale deed was illegal and invalid.

(3.) On notice, the appellant-defendant appeared and filed the written statement taking the plea that the suit was liable to be dismissed and not maintainable while further contending that he had been put in possession by Nachhattar Singh and had become owner in exclusive possession of the portion described as 'A B C D' as shown in the site plan attached with the written statement. No replication was filed and thereafter issues were framed "As to whether the respondent herein would be entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? In support of his averments, the respondent stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and also examined Balour Singh, Draftsman as PW-1, whereas the appellant in order to rebut the evidence examined DW-1 Baldev Singh, DW-2 Jagsir Singh, DW-3 Nahar Singh and himself stepped into the witness box as DW-4. The Courts below held that the respondent would be entitled to the relief of injunction restraining the appellant from raising construction on any specific portion of the suit property which order was upheld by the lower Appellate Court.