PURAN SINGH Vs. DALIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff - Dalip Kaur daughter of Bachan Singh resident of village Pharwahi, Tehsil and district Barnala, had filed a civil suit against defendants Puran Singh s/o Babu Singh and his two sons Tarsem Singh and Balwinder Singh, residents of Parjapat Basti Pharwahi, Tehsil and District Barnala, craving for grant of mandatory and permanent injunction on the averments that she is owner of 1/2 share in the land measuring 3 kanal 17 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 576, Khatauni No.979, Khasra No. 3510 (2-19), 3516 (0-18), situated at village Pharwahi as per jamabandi for the year 2008-09 and she had inherited remaining 1/2 share in that property from Surjit Kaur widow of Teja Singh by way of Will dated 14.12.1990, in that way becoming owner of the entire suit land, after death of Surjit Kaur; that on 16.9.2010, the defendants took forcible possession of the property and started raising construction on the same; that they have constructed a room and also laid a floor, besides installing a gate and defendant No.1 has wrongly obtained electric connection in the name of his son Tarsem Singh for the suit property; that the defendants have threatened to raise further construction over the property in order to change its nature; not listening to the request of the plaintiff to desist from doing so. Feeling aggrieved, she brought the suit in question praying that a direction be issued to the defendants to remove the construction over the property and deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, in addition to that she prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the property in any manner. On being put to notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit, challenging locus standi of the plaintiff to bring the suit in question, further submitting that no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff to file the suit; that the suit was not maintainable and plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit. On merits, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. And the Will set up by the plaintiff in her favour if forged and fabricated documents; that as a matter of fact, the defendants are in possession of the suit property since long and the plaintiff never remained in its possession; that water and electricity connection have already been released in the name of Tarsem Singh, to which the plaintiff did not raise any objection; that the defendants are residing in the property in dispute, tethering their cattle therein; that the construction over the property in dispute was raised about 15 years back; the defendants denied that they had taken possession of the property after filing of the suit. In the end they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed replication, controverting the allegations in the written statement, whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(3.) In order to prove her case, plaintiff Dalip Kaur examined herself as PW-1 and tendered in evidence copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09 as Exhibit P-1, mutation No. 9004 dated 3.11.2011 as Exhibit P-2, copy of application Exhibit P-3, statement of Tarsem Singh Exhibit P-4 and file Exhibit P-5, and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, defendants examined Piyush Aggarwal, SDO, PWD (B&R), Barnala as DW-1, Tarsem Singh as DW-2 thereafter closed their evidence In rebuttal, the plaintiff tendered report of Local Commissioner Exhibit P-7, attendance List Exhibit P-8, site plan Exhibit P-9 and Jamabandi Exhibit P10 and thereafter closed the rebuttal evidence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, issues No. 2 to 4 were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, in view of the findings returned on the issues, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 6.1.2016, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, finding her entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff by demolishing the construction raised over the same by the defendants on their own expense within three months from the date of judgment otherwise the plaintiff could obtain the same through Court. Further, plaintiff was found entitled to relief of permanent injunction and defendants were restrained from raising any further construction over the suit property, so as to change the nature of the same.