YOGESHWAR LAL Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal, is, directed against the judgment and decree, rendered on 2nd November, 2002, in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2002, by the learned District Judge, Chamba District Chamba, H.P., whereby, the learned First Appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Dalhousie, Camp at Chamba, dismissed the appeal, preferred before it by the defendants/appellants. The appellants/defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned District Judge, Chamba, has preferred the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE facts, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal, are that the instant suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents claiming decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants No. 1 to 6 restraining them from raising construction over the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 8421, measuring 131.5 square yards and Khasra Nos. 8422 and 8426, measuring 121.3 square yards, situated in Mohal Chamba Town -I, Pargana Panjla, Tehsil & District Chamba (herein -after referred to as the 'suit land'). The suit property is averred to be partitioned and the defendants/appellants had no right to raise construction over Khasra Nos. 8421, 8422 and 8426 without the suit land having been partitioned by the metes and bounds. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs/respondents avers in their plaint that the defendants/appellants started digging the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 8421, 8422 and 8426 in the month of May, 1998 for the purpose of raising construction, though, the defendants/appellants were requested to desist from raising any construction, till, the partition of the suit land is not effected but the defendants/appellants refused to accede to the request of the plaintiffs/respondents. Accordingly, sequelling the institution of a suit before the learned trial Court.

(3.) THE plaintiffs/respondents filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/appellants, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re -affirmed and re -asserted the averments, made in the plaint.