ISHWAR DASS Vs. KULBIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. dated 10.3.2005, passed in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2003.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), namely, Kulbir Singh had instituted suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant and proforma respondents, namely, Balraj and Baldev. According to the averments made in the plaint, the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 3.11.1983 from one Sh. Basant Singh, father of proforma respondents No. 2 & 3. He has affixed boundary by placing stones with cement and in the year 1984, the plaintiff had filled the plinth of his residential house after leaving one karam space on both sides of the boundary of the suit land. The plaintiff after raising loan completed his house in the year 1990. The vacant portion of the suit land was left by the plaintiff around his house for drainage, water tap etc. The appellantdefendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), in collusion with defendants No. 2 & 3 threatened to forcibly occupy the vacant portion of the suit land by raising construction. The cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 17.9.1995 when defendant No. 1 started stacking bricks over the vacant portion of the suit land. It is, in these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed suit with prayer that decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them not to encroach or raise any sort of construction over the vacant portion of the suit land and defendants be also restrained from raising any construction over the land adjoining the suit land which may cause any obstruction in passage, path, drainage etc.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants denied that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 3.11.1983 from one Basant Singh and after purchasing the suit land plaintiff has affixed boundary by placing stones with cement. It was denied that the vacant portion of the suit land which was left by the plaintiff was used by him for drainage, water tap etc. It was also denied that defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 & 3 was threatening to forcibly occupy the vacant land.