RAJINDER KUMAR & ANOTHER Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P in Civil Appeal No.111 of 2005, titled Sh.Rattan Chand versus Sh. Hira Lal, whereby the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, HP in Civil Suit No.99 of 1999 has been set -aside.

(2.) Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") filed a suit for fixation of boundaries by way of demarcation of the land comprised in khata No. 14min, khatauni No.94min, khasra No. 1096, measuring 0 -03 -82 hectares situated in Tika Dangri, Tapaa Bhumpal, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, HP (hereinafter referred to as " Suit land") and for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as for possession of the suit land by way of demolition of the superstructure, if any, raised by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff in the plaint averred that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit land as per Misal Haquiat for the year, 1996 -97. It is averred that defendant is utter stranger to the suit land and he has no concern, whatsoever, with the suit land and land of the defendant is contiguous to his land. The plaintiffs averred that since the land of the parties is contiguous to each other and there always remains boundary dispute and same cannot be resolved until or unless revenue expert as Local Commissioner is appointed to demarcate the land of the parties and to fix boundaries thereon. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant is head -strong person and is hell -bent in digging the suit land by uprooting the boundaries forcibly with a view to raise construction over the suit land. The plaintiff specifically averred in the plaint that the cause of action accrued to him in the last week of September, 1999 when defendant threatened him that he will dispossess him from the suit land and raise construction over the suit land. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff by way of suit prayed that the defendant be restrained from causing any interference in the suit land. Plaintiff, in alternative also prayed that decree for possession may also be granted in his favour in case defendant is found to be in possession of the suit land or any part thereof.

(3.) Defendant by way of written statement refuted the claim of the plaintiff in toto. Defendant in his written statement took specific objection that the suit is not maintainable since the suit land and adjoining land i.e. khasra No.278/1 has already been demarcated by the Local Commissioner appointed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.32 of 1995, titled as Hira Lal versus Rattan Chand, which is pending in the Court and boundaries have already been fixed. On merits, defendant submitted that adjoining khasra No.278/1 is owned and possessed by him and he is not doing anything over the suit land. Defendant specifically denied that there is any boundary dispute between the parties because as per him dispute of boundaries, if any, has already been settled by the learned trial in another case of Hira Lal versus Rattan Chand. It is specifically averred in the written statement that Local Commissioner has already fixed the boundary between khasra No.278/1 and the suit land. Defendant specifically denied the allegation of uprooting the boundary, as alleged by plaintiff and denied any kind of encroachment made by him in the suit land. Defendant averred that the plaintiff has no cause of action, whatsoever, to maintain the suit in question as nothing has been done by him over the suit land.