AJMER SINGH Vs. YUSUF KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER of limited remand under Section 107 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and under Order 41 Rule 23 -A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908: - Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2001 passed by learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 151 -CA/13 of 2000 titled Yusuf Khan vs. Ajmer Singh and others.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as pleaded are that Ajmer Singh plaintiff filed a suit for injunction pleaded therein that plaintiff and proforma defendants are owners in possession of land comprised in Khata No. 14 min Khatauni No. 29 min, 30 min, 34 min Khasra Nos. 375/1 total measuring 335 -6 situated at mauja Moginand Tehsil Nahan District Sirmaur H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1988 -89. It is pleaded that contesting defendant has no right title or interest in the suit land. It is pleaded that contesting defendant without any right title or interest in the suit land caused interference with the help of his family members and caused damage to the crop sown by plaintiff on the suit land. It is pleaded that house of defendant is situated in adjoining Khasra No. 379 and contesting defendant intended to encroach upon the suit land more particularly Khasra No. 375/1/1. It is pleaded that contesting defendant had collected construction material at the spot. It is further pleaded that plaintiff asked the contesting defendant not to interfere over the suit land but defendant did not accept the request of plaintiff. Prayer for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction sought in favour of the plaintiff and against the contesting defendant and in alternative relief of possession sought in favour of plaintiff and against the contesting defendant on the basis of title of plaintiff.

(3.) PER contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendant pleaded therein that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and suit is not maintainable. It is pleaded that suit is not within limitation and is not maintainable in the present form. It is pleaded that contesting defendant was inducted as nonoccupancy tenant over the suit land in the year 1947 -1948 over the land comprised in Khasra No. 375/1/1 and 379/63/1. It is pleaded that entry in revenue record is contrary to factual position and it is further pleaded that contesting defendant is in settled possession of suit land. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and prayer for dismissal of suit sought.