BALBIR SINGH Vs. SEWA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 326 of 2003 and COPC No. 7 of 2004. The R.S.A. No. 326 of 2003 has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 12.05.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 24 -N/13 of 2002, affirming judgment, decree dated 11.03.2002 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, in Civil Suit No. 147/1 of 2000/1999. The appellant has lost in both the Courts.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents. It has been alleged that appellant is co -sharer in land comprised in Khasra No.348/281, measuring 5 -11 bighas,he is in actual and physical possession of the land measuring 3 biswas out of the suit land on the spot which has been shown in tatima denoted by Khasra No. 348/281/1, measuring 3 biswas. The respondents have no right, title or interest over the suit land. They are not co -sharers in the suit land nor they have any right to cause interference over the suit land.

(3.) THE suit was contested by respondents by filing joint written statement in which preliminary objections such as maintainability, resjudicata, the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands, suppression of material facts, no enforceable cause of action have been taken. On merits, the respondents denied the claim of the appellant. It has been stated that they are also co -sharers in the suit land. The revenue entries not depicting their ownership and possession are illegal and contrary to the factual position on the spot. They have denied actual and physical possession of appellant over land measuring 3 biswas. The suit land is 'abadi - deh ' of villagers and respondents are owners in possession of land denoted by Khasra No. 348/281/1 measuring 11 biswas. In between the properties of parties, there exists a village path which is being used by the villagers including the respondents since time immemorial. The width of the path was about 4/5 feet. The respondents have denied that they have interfered over the suit land. It has been alleged that appellant is encroaching the path. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit.