SUSHIL GUPTA Vs. BISHNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs - Sushil Gupta and his wife Meenu Gupta had brought a suit against defendant Bishna Ram seeking a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the construction made by him in December, 2001 on the land belonging to the plaintiffs with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching upon the said land belonging to the plaintiffs.

(2.) As per the version of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 is owner of 1/3 share and plaintiff No. 2 is owner of 2/3 share in the land measuring 41 kanals 19 marlas bearing khasra Nos. 58//12/2(0-15), 12/3(1-9), 13(8-0), 14/1/2(2-6), 18/2/2(4-14), 19(8-0), 21/1(3-6), 21(6-8), 22/1/2(5-10), 23/1/2(0-3), 62//2/1/2/(0-8), 63//5/9(0-2); they had purchased this land from the previous owner Bhupinder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 24.5.2001 and they have been in peaceful possession thereof since then; they had got their land demarcated and it came out that defendant has encroached upon 8 marlas of land from khasra No. 62//1/1/2/1 and khasra No. 63//5/9; the plaintiffs requested the defendant to remove the encroachment; the defendant promised to do so but did not do so; the plaintiffs reported the matter to the police also but to no effect. Hence they brought a suit.

(3.) On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit taking various legal objections, on merits contending that he had purchased 2 kanals out of 6 kanals 5 marlas of land comprised in khasra No. 62//1/1 from its then owner Gulab Singh vide registered sale deed No. 1796 dated 1.8.1978 executed on 15.6.1978 and he was put in possession of that land; that he had raised construction over the purchased land. The defendant denied that he has encroached upon any part of the property of the plaintiffs. The defendant further contended that Khasra No. 62//1/1 was got demarcated and possession of defendant was found to be correct. Refuting the remaining averments in the plaint, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.