KISHAN CHAND Vs. JOG RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 C.P.C against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Una, dated 1.10.2001 vide which he dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs/appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree of Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.2, Una dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory Injunction.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunction as against the respondents alleging that they were Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes constructing the roof over the house property marked by letters ABCD shown red in colour in the site plan prepared by the draftsman. It was alleged that the site ABCD was situated in khasra Nos.1703/1707 corresponding to the old khasra Number 904 as entered in Misal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid for the year 1988-89. It was alleged that the plaintiffs and other co-sharers were having Abadi since time memorial and all co- sharers are in exclusive possession qua their respective share in the Abadi. It was alleged that the suit property was coming in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs which got burnt in fire in the month of November,1994 and the relief was also granted to the plaintiffs for the damages. The plaintiffs started renovating the house which was damaged due to fire and construction has already been raised up to the roof level, but defendants are not allowing him to complete the construction, hence the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs. 2. In the written statement, defendants pleaded that the suit as mentioned ABCD in the map is part of khasra Number 898 to 903/3,898 to 903/7 and 898 to903/2 and is owned and possessed by defendant No.3. It was alleged that to restrain the plaintiffs from raising any construction in the aforesaid site, defendant No.3 had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs and others. The plaintiffs were restrained from raising construction. However, the plaintiffs had changed the khasra Numbers of the suit to claim the relief to which he is not entitled since the land comprised in khasra Number. 1703/7 is joint of the parties and the suit for partition is pending in Court.

(3.) PARTIES led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment decided issues Number 1 to 3 as against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.