JASWANT SINGH NEGI Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. filed by the original appellant Uday Singh Negi, now represented by his L.R. against the judgment and decree dated 1.7.2000 of the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kinnaur, dated 10.12.1996, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction as against the appellant hereinafter also referred to as defendant No. 1 and in which the original proforma respondent Raj Kumar, now deleted, was impleaded as proforma defendant/defendant No. 2.

(3.) The facts as alleged by the plaintiff were that the plaintiff and proforma defendant were working outside since the plaintiff was posted at Delhi, while proforma defendant is presently deployed outside India in Sweden. It was alleged that father of the plaintiff and proforma defendant, namely, L.S. Negi, owned and possessed movable property including the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 917 measuring 0-40-81 Hac. situated in Up Muhal Kalpa, Ditrict Kinnaur, H.P. It was alleged that father of the plaintiff and proforma defendant is missing since 23.11.1981, is presumed to be dead and plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2 have succeeded to his estate. It was further alleged that a succession certificate in this regard has been granted by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Shimla, exercising the powers of District Judge under the Indian Succession Act. It was further alleged that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2 were owners in possession of the suit land. The suit land previously belonged to the father of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2 and had been looking after the orchard in question on behalf of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2's father. It was alleged that father of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2 had been paying thousands of rupees annually for maintenance of the orchard in question to defendant No. 1. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 with an intention to grab the suit land is trying to interfere with the plaintiff's right of user over the suit land and defendant No. 1 has also moved an application in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade Kalpa, for entering his possession over the suit land. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 has no right over the suit land and since he is threatening to interfere in the possession of plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2, hence the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff.