SAMAY SINGH Vs. MONA YADAV AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram inasmuch as the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram has been dismissed on the ground that a single appeal against the judgment and decree 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram dismissing the plaintiff's suit and allowing the counter claim filed by the defendants is not maintainable. It is prayed that impugned judgment and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram be set aside and the matter be remanded with a direction to the learned First Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh on merits.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant plaintiff for restraining defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property, as detailed in the plaint, by resorting to unlawful or forceful means and not to disturb his possession except in due course of law. It is pleaded that the plaintiff alongwith his family has been in peaceful possession of the suit property since 1992 after occupying the vacant land. He raised construction over this land in 1992 and constructed two rooms and a concrete boundary wall alongwith installation of hand pump for water. Plaintiff, it is stated, started using the property for residential purposes as well as running a milk dairy continuously and peacefully since 1992. Sukhbir Singh and Rambir Singh are alleged to have approached the plaintiff in 1992 and proclaimed themselves to be the owners of the land. They were rebuked by the plaintiff and were asked not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property over which he had raised construction. It is claimed that the plaintiff alongwith his family was enjoying uninterrupted possession over the property to the exclusion of all others since 1992. Few months prior to the filing of the suit, defendants respondents visited the suit property and informed him that they were in the process of purchasing the property from the previous owners on which the plaintiff apprised them that Sukhbir Singh and Rambir Singh had been asked not to interfere in the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit property till date. Children of the plaintiff, it is pleaded, were admitted in different schools since 1992 onwards and permanent address in the school records is the address of the property in question. Ration card and voter card of the plaintiff mention the said address. In the month of October, 2009 defendants started threatening the plaintiff, claiming to be the owners of the property in question. Despite genuine request of the plaintiff, they did not desist. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) Respondents defendants resisted the suit. In the written statement filed by them various preliminary objections were raised. It is stated that the plaintiff is a trespasser who raised a false plea of raising construction and installation of hand pump etc. on the suit property. It is further stated that the plaintiff was guilty of concealment of material facts.