SANT RAM AND ANR. Vs. NIKRA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present regular second appeal filed under Sec. 100 of Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, HP, in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2003, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2003, passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 3/1 of 2000.

(2.) The key facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering or raising any construction over the suit land comprising of Khata Khatoni No. 4/6 min, Khasra No. 193 land measuring 5.14 Bighas situated in village Delag, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, HP, in any manner by themselves or through their family members or in alternative if the appellants/defendants succeed in raising construction, to pass decree for demolishing the structure, in favour of the plaintiff and possession be restored to its original plaintiff Nikra Ram.

(3.) Respondent/plaintiff, in the averments made in the plaint, claimed himself to be joint owner in possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 4/6 min Khasra No. 193, measuring 5.14 bighas, situated in village Delag, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, HP along with other cosharers. He also averred that defendants, who are also resident of the same village, have no right title over the suit land in any manner. As per plaintiff, the defendants, who are forceful persons intending to raise construction over the suit land by grabbing the land of the plaintiff and they have already collected the construction material near the suit land. Plaintiff averred that despite several requests, defendants are adamant to raise construction over the suit land and on the basis of aforesaid submissions having been made in the plaint, plaintiff claimed for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and raising construction over the suit land. Plaintiff also stated that cause of action arose to him on 5th Jan., 2000, when the defendants forcefully tried to raise construction over the suit land despite repeated requests of the plaintiff.