GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.1.1980 passed by the courts of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, who reversed the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1975 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Pathankot who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for injunction.

(2.) Brief facts of the case can be given as follows: Des Raj, Nand Lal and Satya Nand, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Panchayat permanently from interfering in their possession on the shop compounding and adjoining Thara over which some trees are also standing of the plaintiffs and the disputed site has been shown by the words ABCKHDEFG shown in red colour and fully described in the Village Kalesar, Tehsil Pathankot.

(3.) The case set up by the plaintiffs before the trial court was that they are the co-owners of the site in dispute and the same has been in their possession since the time of their forefathers. The site was partitioned by the forefathers of the plaintiffs. The portion marked as ABCHFG has been in exclusive possession of the plaintiff No. 1 for the last more than 20 years. The portion marked as EFHD is in exclusive possession of plaintiff No. 2 and 3. They are enjoying the peaceful possession of the site in dispute. The son of plaintiff No. 1, Shri Des Raj, contested the panchayat election against the defendant Shri Amar Singh Sarpanch in the election of 1972. After the election, plaintiff No. 1 filed an election petition also. Sarpanch Amar Singh had been putting the pressure on the son of the plaintiff No. l to withdraw the election petition. On 24.12.1973, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, passed the resolution claiming the site in dispute to be the property of the Gram Panchayat and thereby threatening to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. This act on the part of the defendant in passing the resolution regarding the site in dispute is illegal. It casts a cloud upon the title of the plaintiffs. The defendant-Gram Panchayat was asked not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs but it refused. The plaintiffs, thus, filed the suit.