MOTI RAM AND OTHERS Vs. MITHNU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 11.3.2008 on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Suit for injunction filed by respondent Mithnu Ram hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' against the appellants, now to be referred as 'the defendants' seeking permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit land was decreed by the learned trial Court, which was upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge.

(3.) Precisely, plaintiff claimed himself to be the non-occupancy tenant over the suit land and it is pleaded that when his mutation for conferment of the proprietary rights was not conferred, he was compelled to file the suit against his father Fisha in the Court of Sub Judge, Rampur. The suit was decreed. In execution, the plaintiff was put in possession on 16.1.1993 by the revenue field agency, later he being in possession as non-occupancy tenant, became its owner automatically by virtue of Section 104 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, whereas defendants had no concern with the suit land but taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, who was running a tailoring shop at Shimla, defendants started interference in his peaceful possession without any rhyme and reason, thus a criminal case was registered on 27.11.2002 in police Station Rampur. Even thereafter they had threatened to dispossess him from the suit property and sought injunction.