DEEPAK PARKASH Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 22.4.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 21-P/1998 by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1997 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class-I, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 151/1990.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 89/1 and 89/2 as shown in Tatima Ex.PW-1/B bearing Khata No. 72, Khatauni No. 158, situated at Mohal Gorat, Mauza Rajpur, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. was recorded in the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff. The defendant was stranger to the said land and in September, 1990, the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') started raising a wooden shed over the suit land and also started digging it with the intention to lay fresh foundation. In alternative, the plaintiff prayed that if any part of the suit land was found underneath construction of the defendant, then the possession of the same be delivered to the plaintiff by way of demolition of the said structure.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing written statement in which preliminary objections of locus standi, estoppel, cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction and valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, it was pleaded that the defendant did not specifically dispute the revenue entries in favour of the plaintiff. However, it was stated that if any land of the plaintiff was found in possession of the defendant, then the defendant had perfected his title over the same by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that the construction of the defendant was about 15 years back and it was open, hostile and uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was denied that the defendant raised any construction in September, 1990 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.