JEET CHAND Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.6.2012 rendered by the District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 139 -XIII/2011. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering, making any passage, raising any sort of construction or changing the nature of the land measuring 0 -07 -16 hectares comprised in Khasra No. 633, Khatauni No. 59 min, Khewat No. 43 min and land measuring 0 -00 -54 hectares comprised in Khasra No. 637/2, Khatauni No. 136 min, Khewat No. 75 min as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1999 -2000 situated in village Aisan Mauja Muchhali, Tehsil Bangana, District Una. He has also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the super structure, if any, raised by the defendant forcibly during the pendency of the suit. According to him, the suit land is owned and possessed by him alongwith co -sharers and the defendant is stranger to the suit land. The defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit land. He was threatening to interfere in the suit land by raising construction and making passage.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of Khasra No. 637. According to him, some part of old passage passes through Khasra No. 633 measuring about 1 1/2 feet. According to defendant, there is old Abadi of plaintiff in Khasra No. 635. It is further submitted that in land measuring 0 -00 -10 hectares comprised in Khasra No. 637, Chajja of house has been entered as per copy of jamabandi for the year 1999 -2000.

(3.) MR . Ramakant Sharma has vehemently argued that the first appellate court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. According to him, the defendant has proved the existence of passage over the suit land.