MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THEOG Vs. GURCHARAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla vide which the appeal filed by the appellant (defendant before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and judgment and decree dtd. 28/3/2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Theog was upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 4, Khatauni No. 7, Khasra No.- 170, measuring 66.88 square mtrs., situated in Mohal Shali Bazar, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. and a house constructed thereon (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was asserted that the plaintiffs are co-owners in possession of the suit land. The suit land was allotted to the plaintiffs in a family partition. Municipal Council Theog was permitted to store water in the structure over the suit land as a licensee when there was no proper supply in Theog Bazar. Now the water supply has improved and Municipal Council Theog has stopped the storage of water on the suit land. The defendant- Municipal Council Theog - put a lock on the building and stored material in it. The plaintiffs served a notice upon the defendant, terminating the licence and asked the defendant to deliver the possession but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing an amended written statement, taking preliminary objection regarding lack of maintainability and cause of action. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that the suit land is in possession of the defendant. It was asserted that the land was gifted for the construction of a storage tank by the ancestors of the plaintiffs for storing the water during emergencies. The defendant constructed a permanent structure and the licence has become irrevocable. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the possession. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.