INDIRA DOGRA Vs. ASHA MAYOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant and is aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative suit for mandatory injunction to the effect that she is shareholder of Hill View Coop Housing Society Limited and having her A/C No. 290. She had taken on lease plot No. 79 from the said Society vide lease agreement dated 1.5.1999 on payment of all the charges including share money, lease money etc. on 18.1.1999 and was put into possession of Plot No. 79 situated in the Hill View Coop. Housing Society Colony, at village Rainsary, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that the defendants being head strong persons, without any right title or interest threatened to interfere with the suit land started raising construction over it a week back before filing the suit. It was also averred that defendants were requested to accede to the claim of the plaintiff, but they refused to do so and as such cause of action accrued to the plaintiff a day before filing of the suit. Hence, the suit.

(2.) THE defendants resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein they took preliminary objections regarding locus standi, estoppel, mis -joinder and non -joinder of necessary parties and maintainability. On merits, most of the contents of the plaint have been denied as being wrong. It was averred that in fact the defendants being member of the Hill View Cooperative Housing Society, had taken on lease the plot No. 79 i.e. the suit land, vide agreement of lease dated 2.9.1994. It was averred that defendant No. 1 became share holder on 15.3.1992 and a lessee on 2.9.1994 was executed between her and society for a period of 99 years. As per defendant, she had paid all the charges including, share money, lease money etc. amounting to Rs. 31,050/ - on 15.3.1992 and a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - was later on paid by her to the Society on 12.10.2001. The possession was handed over to her and ever since she is in peaceful possession over it. It was further submitted that she filed an application for permission to raise construction over the suit land and same was granted to her by the Society on 22.4.2001. She later on raised boundary wall around the plot i.e. suit land by spending Rs. 1,00,000/ -. It was submitted that defendant No. 1 had stacked construction material over the suit land and that plaintiff had no right, title or interest whatsoever over the same. It was further averred that the defendant No. 1 spent Rs. 2,00,000/ - over the suit land and that the plaintiff had been duped by Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Secretary of the Society, against whom several charges of corruptions were made and later on the Deputy Commissioner, Una had asked him to give charge of the account books and record etc. of the Society. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. The suit being misconceived is prayed to be dismissed with special costs.

(3.) THE following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 14.6.2005: - -