K.R. VERMA Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of RSA Nos. 416 and 442 of 1999. The facts, in brief, are that K.R. Verma had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against Rajinder Singh vide plaint dated 15.12.1987. The plaint was amended and Para 7-A added, amended plaint dated 02.08.1988 was filed. The pleaded case of K.R.Verma is that he had purchased three strayed building known as 'Laxmi Ram Building' along with land comprised in Khasra No.407/365/1/2/1/1, Village Majthai from its previous owner Laxmi Ram along with all rights, title and interest in the adjoining land vide sale document dated 02.02.1958 from Krishan Singh father of Rajinder Singh. It has been pleaded that since then K.R. Verma has been coming in possession of the land and building purchased by him.

(2.) The further case of K.R. Verma is that on the backside of the three strayed building, there exists five feet wide retaining wall top of which is being used for passage by plaintiff through his predecessor for the last more than 30 years. The said retaining wall is in exclusive possession of the plaintiff for the last more than 30 years through his predecessor-in-interest Laxmi Ram. There is an open plot of land situated towards South of the said building of the plaintiff which open plot of land is also owned by the plaintiff.

(3.) On the East Southern side of the building of the plaintiff there is land of Rajinder Singh defendant, who had started illegal digging towards the land and property of the plaintiff. Rajinder Singh with the help of Arjun Dev Grover, Bimla Grover and others damaged part of the retaining wall. The plaintiff has obtained injunction order against Arjun Dev Grover and Bimla Grover, who had encroached part of the aforesaid plot of the plaintiff situated on the back of the building of the plaintiff. Rajinder Singh has not stopped illegal interference and digging despite repeated requests. Rajinder Singh is threatening to raise construction on his adjoining land in violation of mandatory provisions of Town and Country Planning Act.