MAN MOHAN SINGH Vs. GOPI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants and have come up in appeal against concurrent findings recorded against them by the learned Courts below.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the predecessor -in -interest of the appellants late Sh. Man Mohan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the predecessors -in -interest of the respondents on the allegations that he had been owner in possession of the land described in Khata Khatauni No. 42 min/86, Khasra Nos. 983/491 measuring 0 -3 bigha and 984/491 measuring 0 -13 bighas situated in Mauza Dalan, Pargana Kepu, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). The suit land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and other co -sharers. However, in family partition, the suit land had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been utilizing the usufruct of the suit land. In 1970 -71 Oddi -Bithal horticultural link road stood constructed through old Khasra No. 491. As a result of construction of the said link road, Khasra No. 491 (old) owned and possessed by the plaintiff and other co -sharers had been bifurcated into two parts. Khasra No. 983/491 measuring 0 -3 bigha had fallen on the upper side of Oddi -Bithal horticultural link road and Khasra No. 984/491 measuring 0 -13 bigha had fallen on the lower side of the said link road. Revenue estate Dalan had been subjected to settlement operation in 1994 -95. At the time of the last settlement in 1994 -95, new Khasra No. 1075 measuring 0 -06 -73 hectares had been carved out of old Khasra No. 983/491 and 984/491 both measuring 0 -16 bigha. It was averred that the settlement official had fallen into error in carving out new khasra No. 1075 out of 2 old Khasra Nos. 983/491 and 984/491 as these two old khasra numbers were not contiguous and could not have been formed one compact piece of land. Oddi -Bithal horticultural link road had bifurcated old Khasra No. 983/491 and 984/491. The defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land described in Khasra No. 983/491 measuring 0 -3 bigha. On 5.5.1998, the defendants had trespassed into the suit land and had threatened to take away grass therefrom. The defendants had been requested not to commit mischief but without any result. The plaintiff prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and the averments as made in the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated and re -affirmed.