ASHOK KAPOOR Vs. MURTU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, on 21.11.2013 whereby he affirmed the order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, District Kullu, and allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of injunction filed by the applicant and at the same time dismissed the application preferred under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from raising any sort of construction over the suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 877 and 878, Khatauni No.10 of Khata No.10, measuring 0-04-49 hect. and land measuring 0-02-85 hect. comprised in Khasra No.876 contained in Khatauni No.168 of Khata No.107, situated at Muhal Parsha Phati Shaleen Kothi, Manali, tehsil Manali, District Kullu. It was alleged that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by Dinu Ram to the extent of 1/2 share and S/Sh. Chetu and Dhalu, both in equal shares to the extent of 1/2 share. It was alleged that the petitioner was successor of Dinu and he in connivance with the revenue officials wrongly got the suit land entered in his exclusive possession. It was stated that suit land was joint and possessed by the respondent to the extent of 1/4 share but under the guise of wrong revenue entries, the petitioner without getting the suit land partitioned had started raising construction over the suit land in June, 2012, while he had no right to raise the said construction till the partition was effected because this was the most valuable portion of the suit land on the National Highway.

(3.) The petitioner opposed the application by filing the reply wherein it was alleged that the application was not maintainable. It was also alleged that the respondent was not joint owner in possession of the suit land and claimed exclusive possession. It was also alleged that the petitioner started raising construction in February, 2012 and had spent more than Rs. 7 lacs on the construction thereof. The petitioner denied the possession of the respondent over the suit land and further claimed the revenue entries to be correct.