SONAM ANGROOP Vs. KHUB RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 17/2004, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') has filed the present appeal for quashing and setting aside the same.

(2.) The bone of contention in the present lis is a piece of land measuring 0 -00 -96 hectares bearing Khasra No. 1216, Khewat No. 115, Khatauni No. 146 situated in Phati Bari, Kothi Baragarh, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu as recorded in Misal Hakiyat for the year 2000 -01 Ext. P -2/DW -1/D. The suit land was granted in 'Nautor' to one Sh. Ram Nath, as is apparent from the order of mutation dated 17.03.1985 Ext. DW -1/A. He died intestate and the suit land as such was inherited by his legal heirs Smt. Mohni Devi and Smt. Maya Devi, daughters, whereas Sh. Bhope Chand, son in equal shares. The mutation of inheritance No. 1128 was attested and sanctioned in their names, as is apparent from entries below remarks column in the Jamabandi for the year 1992 -93, Ext. DW -1/E. The suit land was sold by aforesaid Mohni Devi, Maya Devi and Bhope Chand to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs'). The plaintiffs came to be recorded as owners in possession of the suit land, as is apparent from the entries in the Misal Hakiyat for the year 2000 -01 Ext. P -2/DW -1/D. Later on the defendant allegedly started causing interference in the suit land. He threatened the plaintiffs to take possession of the suit land forcibly and raise some construction thereon. They requested him to desist from such unlawful activities but of no avail, hence the suit for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining thereby the defendant from causing any interference over the suit land or taking possession thereof forcibly. In the alternative, a decree for possession of the suit land in the event of defendant succeeds in dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom during the pendency of the suit, was also sought.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement has raised preliminary objections such as the suit is not maintainable, barred by limitation, plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit, they have no locus standi to file and maintain the same and that they have not approached the Court with clean hands, hence not entitled to the relief of injunction discretionary in nature. Also that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction. The suit land has not been properly identified and that the defendant being in open, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land since 1952 has acquired title by way of adverse possession.