SITA RAM Vs. RANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff having lost in both the Courts has filed second appeal against the judgment, decree dated 17.9.2003 passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2002 affirming but modifying on cost judgment, decree dated 17.7.2002 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur (HP).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that appellant had filed a suit for injunction that he is owner in possession of suit land measuring 57.4 kanals, Tikka Barsar, Mauza Panjgran vide jamabandi 1991-92, more specifically described in the plaint. THE respondents have no right title or interest in the suit land. THEy are threatening to make a road over the suit land forcibly by cutting valuable trees standing thereon. THE respondents on 17.7.2001 started digging work. THE request made by the appellant to the respondents had gone unheeded. THE appellant filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction to restore the suit land to its original position.

(3.) IT has been pleaded that respondents have no concern with the land of the appellant except that portion of the disputed land over which the road is in existence. IT has been pleaded that false and frivolous case has been filed by appellant with malafide intention to harass the respondents and to drag them into unnecessary litigation. The valuation of the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has been denied. The respondents claimed special costs under Section 35-A CPC.