PHOOL SINGH Vs. BAL RAMLEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff, has filed this appeal being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 26.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rewari, as well as judgment and decree dated 16.12.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, whereby suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the property as described in the plaint and defendants have no right, title and interest in the same. Defendants are pleaded to have illegally opened a gate, window, mora and projection towards the property of the plaintiff. Consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close the moras, gate, window opened towards the property of the plaintiff, was also sought. It is pleaded that the property in dispute is the ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiff and he is using the same for the purpose of 'bara'. It is pleaded that the ancestors of the plaintiff were the owners in possession of the property in question and after their death, he became owner in possession of the same. It is further pleaded that in order to grab the property of the plaintiff, the defendant being a strong headed person, opened the gate towards the southern side of his property. It is further pleaded that the defendants have illegally constructed projection, moras, windows and gate illegally in his absence, which are liable to be demolished. Plaintiff requested the defendants many times to remove the same, but they did not pay any heed to his requests. Accordingly, the present suit was filed.

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendant. Various preliminary objections were raised in the written statement. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the property in dispute. The property in dispute is a 'rasta' (passage) of 'Abadi Deh', which falls in Khasra no.21 and the same vests in the Gram Panchayat. It is further pleaded that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute and the plaintiff has not impleaded it as a necessary party in the suit. It is further pleaded that the Tehsildar, Rewari, has prepared a demarcation report regarding the property in dispute vide file no. 564/nishandeshi dated 30.06.2009 and according to that, disputed property is a rasta of the abovesaid khasra number, which vests in Gram Panchayat, Devlawas. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has illegally put his 'khad khudi' in front of the defendant's house and that too without permission from the Gram Panchayat. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has given wrong dimensions of his property and the property in dispute is not the ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiff. Remaining averments in the plaint, were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.