TELU RAM Vs. RAM DASS SON OF CHANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUSTICE Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2001 rendered by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.71 of 1994.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter refereed to as 'defendants' for convenience sake) restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the land measuring 0-2-5 bighas shown as Khasra No. 607/2 in tatima of village Panjgain and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the bricks, which have been kept in the suit land. According to the plaintiff, she is owner in possession of the land as per tatima dated 22.2.1977 and as earmarked khasra No. 607/1, which is part of khasra No. 607. In 1984, she had filed suit for permanent injunction pertaining to the land measuring 0-3-3 bighas as shown in Khasra No.607/1 in the tatima against Ram Dass, i.e. defendant No.1 and Lahori Ram, husband of defendant No.3, namely, Neero since they had started interfering in the portion of the suit land. Suit was decreed on 28.6.1985. Defendants No.1 to 3 constructed a structure on this land and the plaintiff filed execution of the decree for getting the structure demolished. The learned Sub Judge after spot inspection and demarcation got the construction removed but they piled the bricks removed from Khasra No. 607/1 in Khasra No. 607/2. They started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the suit land comprising Khasra No. 607/2. It is in these circumstances, plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Sub Judge framed issues on 8.10.1991. He dismissed the suit on 31.8.1994. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. He also dismissed the same on 17.4.2001. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the courts below have utterly misread and mis-appreciated the documents Ex.PA and PB which vitiate the impugned judgment and decree?