SHIV CHAND Vs. VINAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) THE respondents are owners in possession of land, bearing Khasra No. 324. They filed a suit in the year 1994 against the present appellants seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants from interfering in their aforesaid land. The matter was compromised on 22.10.1994 and it was agreed that the appellants would Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? not cause any interference in Khasra No. 324, which they admitted to belong to the respondents. In view of the aforesaid statement, made by the appellants, the suit was withdrawn by the respondents. In the year 1999 the respondents again filed a suit (which has led to the filing of the present appeal) alleging that the appellants had again started interfering in Khasra No. 324 and they sought issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants from causing any interference in their possession and in the alternative, it was prayed that in case the appellants succeeded in raising any construction on any portion of the suit land, i.e. Khasra No. 324, in that situation decree for possession of that portion, after demolition of the structure which the appellant might raise, be also passed.

(3.) TRIAL Court framed issues based on the pleadings of the parties and recorded the evidence adduced by the parties. The respondents, while leading their evidence, examined one Kanungo and got proved from him a demarcation report. As per the testimony of the Kanungo and the report, demarcation was carried out on the spot (on the application of the respondents, which they submitted to the Tehsildar) on 16.7.1999. The Kanungo found that on a portion of Khasra No. 324, depicted by Khasra No. Rs.324/1' in the Tatima attached with the report, a tin- posh structure had been raised on the spot by the appellants / defendants recently. The trial Court, based on the evidence, particularly the report and the testimony of the Kanungo, returned the finding that the appellants had made encroachment on a portion of Khasra No. 324 by raising construction thereon during the pendency of the suit and consequently decreed the suit and passed a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as also mandatory injunction. The appellants filed appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, which stands dismissed.