GEETA DEVI Vs. DIBRU RAM ALIAS RAM RAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS SECOND APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE APPELLANTS') AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6-9-1994 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA THEREBY DISMISSING CIVIL APPEAL NO. 60-P/XIII OF 1993 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23-4-1993 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SUB-JUDGE (1), PALAMPUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS.

(2.) BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE PRESENTATION OF THIS APPEAL ARE THAT MADHO RAM, PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF THE APPELLANTS 1(A) TO L(D) AND APPELLANT NO. 2 INSTITUTED A SUIT FOR PERPETUAL PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE RESPONDENT'). CASE OF THE APPELLANTS, AS MADE OUT IN THE PLAINT, IS THAT THEY ARE THE OWNERS IN POSSESSION OF ABADI DEH LAND COMPRISING KHASRA NO. 165 MEASURING 0-00-78 HECTARES SITUATE IN MOHAL KUNSAL UPERLI, MAUZA AND TEHSIL BAIJNATH. THE RESPONDENT IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND ADJACENT TO THE SAID LAND AND STARTED INTERFERING WITH THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANTS IN THE LAND IN SUIT BY COLLECTING MATERIAL TO RAISE CONSTRUCTION ON THE SUIT LAND AND ALSO CUT AND REMOVED SOME BRANCHES OF PALM TREES THEREFROM. IN VIEW OF THE THREAT OF FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION BY THE RESPONDENT, SUIT WAS INSTITUTED CLAIMING PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENT FROM INTERFERING IN THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANTS OVER THE SUIT LAND AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION FOR REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE IF THE RESPONDENT SUCCEEDED IN RAISING ANY CONSTRUCTION OVER THE SUIT LAND DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT.

(3.) THE RESPONDENT CONTESTED THE SUIT AND FILED WRITTEN STATEMENT WHEREIN HE RAISED THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS THAT THE SUIT WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT FORM, THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI OR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, THAT THE APPELLANTS IS ESTOPPED FROM FILING THE SUIT BY THEIR ACT AND CONDUCT, THAT THE SUIT IS NOT PROPERLY VALUED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COURTFEE AND JURISDICTION AND THE SUIT IS BAD FOR WANT OF CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT LAND. ON MERITS, IT WAS DENIED THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE THE OWNERS IN POSSESSION OF THE SUIT LAND. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SUIT LAND WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENT AND HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER DENIED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD RAISED ANY CONSTRUCTION OVER THE SUIT LAND AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS STARTED CONSTRUCTION ON LAND KHASRA NO. 164. THUS, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANTS HAS BEEN DENIED IN TOTO.