H P HOUSING BOARD Vs. JOGINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing his suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as also for the mandatory injunction as filed by the appellant. THE plaintiff had pleaded that the defendants-respondents herein had violated the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for mandatory injunction by removing the construction raised by the respondents against the terms of allotment.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court settled eight issues. Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were crucial and primary to the decision of the case and related to the fact as to whether the defendants have violated the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and whether the sale was subject to the terms and conditions. Learned trial Court, on the evidence on record, held on the question of construction being raised in violation of the terms of the agreement that the witnesses of the plaintiff, more especially PW4 Harbans Lal Executive Engineer had denied that he had visited the spot. Witnesses of the plaintiff had themselves stated that they did not visit the spot when the construction was being carried out and more importantly the plaintiff did not prove that the defendants have raised construction in contravention of the terms and conditions of the approved plan.

(3.) THIS appeal was admitted by this Court on 10.5.2001 on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Courts below after holding that the respondents had raised unauthorised construction over the land in dispute can still refuse to grant a decree for mandatory injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case?