BADRI PRAKASH Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff'), filed a suit initially for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant'). This suit was based on title. Suit land measuring 3 biswas, comprised in khasra No. 920, Khata/ Khatauni No.192 min/300 min, as per Jamabandi for the year 1982-83, situate in Phati Bari, Kothi Baragarh, Tehsil and District Kullu. Plaintiff claimed that he had constructed a temporary wooden Khokha (Kiosk) four years ago, (to the filing of the suit) over the suit land. This was meant for storage of fuel wood and grass etc. Defendant having no right, title or interest over it started threatening on 6.11.1985 to forcibly occupy the same by raising construction over it after demolishing the Khokha of the plaintiff. With a view to accomplish the construction, he started collecting construction material at the spot and further attempted to dig out the foundations. Despite having been called upon to desist from his such acts and also not to interfere with plaintiff's possession over the suit land, defendant refused to do so, therefore, suit had to be filed. While praying for a decree for mandatory prohibitory injunction to the effect that he should not interfere in any manner whatsoever, he should also not raise any sort of construction over the suit land. Further prayer was made, that in case it is proved that defendant has dispossessed the plaintiff, in such a situation, a decree for possession by demolition be also granted in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) This suit was contested and resisted by the defendant. While disputing and denying the title of the plaintiff he also set up the plea of adverse possession regarding the suit land, as according to him, he was in its possession for the last more than 40 years from the time of his predecessors. His further case was that plaintiff was never in possession over the suit land. It was also claimed that this land was being used during marriages and other functions in his family for entertaining people, who participated in such functions.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, plaint was amended but no written statement to the amended plaint was filed.