CHAMAN LAL Vs. DROPTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is plaintiff in the suit filed by him against the defendants-respondents, with prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining defendant No.1 Dropti from encroaching upon valuable portion and dispossessing the plaintiff, by raising construction of hotel over the suit land comprised in Khasra No.1525, 1526 and 1527, situated in Mohal, Phati and Kothi Jagatsukh, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, owned jointly by plaintiff, defendant No.1 and others, till partition of the suit land, with alternative prayer for mandatory injunction, in case defendant No.1 succeeds in raising construction of hotel during pendency of suit, to demolish the construction and putting the suit land in its original position at the cost and expenses of defendant No.1. In addition, prayer has also been made to restrain defendants No.2 and 3 from issuing NOC to defendant No.1 on the basis of illegal Mauka Tatima, submitted by defendant No.1, till partition of the suit land.

(2.) Basis for filing suit, as averred in the plaint, is that plaintiff and defendant No.1 Dropti are joint owners in possession of the suit land, referred supra, alongwith other coowners/co-sharers and the land has not been lawfully partitioned between the co-sharers/co-owners and defendant No.1, without consent of the plaintiff, has started raising construction of hotel over the valuable portion and front side of the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land, with help of illegal Mauka Tatima of the spot issued by Revenue Authorities, reflecting defendant No.1 in exclusive possession of the suit land, but contrary to the record.

(3.) Plaintiff, alongwith suit, had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction, restraining defendant No.1 from raising any sort of unlawful construction of hotel on the suit land and from occupying more valuable portion and front side thereof, by dispossessing the plaintiff from his share in the suit land and also to restrain defendants No.2 and 3 from issuing NOC on the basis of illegal Mauka Tatima, till final disposal of the suit.