PREM LAL Vs. BHAGDEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/respondent had instituted a suit before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. claiming the relief of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the defendant/appellant. The learned trial Court, in its judgment and decree, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent. Besides the counter claim, instituted by the defendant/appellant before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, for a decree of specific performance of agreement, comprised in Ext. DW1/A, being awarded in his favour, was, too, declined by the learned trial Court. In an appeal, instituted, at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent, before the learned First Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent, in as much, as, it granted the relief of possession in favour of the plaintiff/respondent qua the suit property, comprised in Khasra Nos. 888/431 and 892/431. Though the defendant/appellant too had filed cross -objections, before the First Appellate Court against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court refusing to accord the decree of specific performance of Ext. DW1/A qua the suit land in his favour, the same, too, came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court. The defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree, rendered by the First Appellate Court, in dismissing his cross -objections, preferred before it. Hence, has instituted the instant appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering in two rooms constructed by the plaintiff/respondent over her land comprised in Khasra No. 888/431 and 892/431, Khata Khatauni No. 202/230 min, situated at Mauza Banikhet Jarei, Pargana Chuhan, Tehsil Bhattiyat, District Chamba, H.P. and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant/appellant to remove his lock from both the rooms. The plaintiff/respondent had averred that she is owner in possession of Khasra No. 888/431 and 892/431, measuring 0 -13 -0 bighas bearing Khata Khatauni No. 202/230 and has constructed two houses, one each on Khasra No. 888/431 and 892/431 and has let out the house to various persons. It is further averred that the defendant/appellant purchased 0 -2 -0 bighas of land out of Khasra No. 889/431, Khata Khatauni No. 203/231 from one Kesar, son of Haria vide sale deed No. 77 dated 15th June, 1998 and after the registration of the sale deed, the defendant/appellant put his lock, on two rooms of the plaintiff/respondent, situated in Khasra No. 888/431 and 892/431, which were already locked by the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent requested the defendant that he has not purchased these rooms from her. The plaintiff/respondent further averred that the defendant/appellant took forcible possession of the two rooms constructed by her without any right and title on 15th June, 1998, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to get back the possession of the rooms, hence, the cause of action accrued to her and the suit before the trial Court was filed.

(3.) THE plaintiff/respondent filed replication as also written statement to the counter claim, wherein, she denied the contents of the written statement and re -affirmed and re -asserted the averments, made in the plaint. In the written statement to the counter claim, it is alleged that the counter claim is not valid and cannot be looked into since the same is beyond limitation. The execution of the agreement to sell inter se the parties has been denied by the plaintiff. It is also submitted that the defendant took possession of the house on 15.6.1998 and not in the year 1991.