KANTA DEVI Vs. SOBHA NATH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant First Appeal filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (U) of CPC, lays challenge to judgment dtd. 5/4/2022, passed by the learned Additional District Jude, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 72/NL/13 of 2019, setting aside judgment dtd. 4/2/2019, passed in Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 2012 titled Shobha Nath Verma v. Smt. Narender Kaur and Anr., whereby suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), for declaration and permanent injunction, came to be partly decreed.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent-plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant, averring therein that he is owner in possession of khasra No. 289/4, khewat/khatauni No. 2/2, situated in Mauja Dadibhola Hadbast No. 146, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., measuring 10 biswas (herein after referred to as the "suit land"). Respondent/plaintiff further averred in the suit that suit land was originally part of khasra No. 289, measuring 17 biswas, out of which, two biswas belonged to defendants. Plaintiff further averred that he raised construction of two store rooms, one underground water tank in December, 2011 for the purpose of storage of water and for keeping the construction material i.e. cement, iron and other masonry equipments, but since on account of prior engagements, he was unable to visit the spot, defendants taking undue advantage of busyness of the plaintiff, started digging foundation on the two sides of the store rooms constructed by the plaintiff. Since despite there being resistance shown by the plaintiff, defendants collected construction material on the site, she approached the competent court of law by way of suit as detailed herein above.

(3.) Aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiff came to be resisted by the defendants. Besides raising preliminary objections qua maintainability and cause of action, defendants specifically denied factum with regard to their having dug the foundation on the land of the plaintiff. Defendant claimed that public authorities i.e. SDM & SHO visited the spot and found that construction was being carried by the defendant on her own plots bearing khasra Nos. 289/2 and 288/10. Defendant No.2 Kanta Devi also filed written statement, but since contents thereof may not be of much relevance, same are not being noticed.