JAGAT SINGH Vs. NAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 12.6.2000, vide which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. I, Paonta Sahib, dated 2.8.2000, was set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Respondent, hereinafter also referred to as the Plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction and for damages to the extent of Rs. 500/- as against the Appellant, hereinafter also referred to as the Defendant. It was alleged that he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 98 and 242/100 measuring 7 bighas 19 biswas situated in Village Kandela Adhwar, as detailed in the plaint. It was further alleged that there are number of trees of various varieties standing in the suit land, Whether the reporters of the local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. which were planted and grown by the Plaintiff and there is a Ghasni also where the Plaintiff grows the grass. It was further alleged that the land of the Defendant also adjoins the suit land, which falls below the land of the Plaintiff at a lower level. It was also alleged that the Defendant interferes in the land of the Plaintiff. On 11.2.1997, the Defendant lit fire near the land of the Plaintiff causing damage to six trees of Buel standing on the suit land and belonging to the Plaintiff and accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 300/-. It was further alleged that the Defendant is still interfering in the land of the Plaintiff and causing damage to the trees and grass, hence the suit for injunction and for recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages filed by the Plaintiff.

(3.) The Defendant admitted in the written statement filed by him that the suit land and the land of the Defendant comprising in Khasra No. 101 measuring 5 bigha and 6 biswa are adjacent to one another on the same hilly slope. However, he admitted that the suit land is situated on the upper side while the land of the Defendant is on lower side to the suit land in the same hilly slope. He also admitted that the Plaintiff has grown various kinds of trees on the boundary line of the two lands. It was also pleaded that the land of the Defendant is a cultivable land and in order to destroy the crop of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has allowed to grow the branches of his trees overhanging the land of the Defendant. It was further pleaded that whenever the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to cut the overhanging branches, then the Plaintiff picked up quarrels and threatened with civil and criminal litigation. It was also pleaded that the branches of the trees of the Plaintiff are hanging over the land of the Defendant to the extent of 45'-60' on account of which the crops cannot be grown in the land of the Defendant under the shadow of the branches of the trees of the Plaintiff. He also pleaded that he is suffering damages to the tune of Rs. 300/- in every crop season and denied that he caused any loss to the Plaintiff.