LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-246

SHYAM KUMARI Vs. KUMARI GIAN MALA AND OTHERS

Decided On May 05, 2016
SHYAM KUMARI Appellant
V/S
Kumari Gian Mala And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintained by the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter to be called as "the defendants") against respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter to be called as, "the plaintiff"), assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2005, passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court in First Appeal. The Proforma respondents No.2 and 3 (hereinafter to be called as "defendants 3 and 4") did not put in appearance in the Courts below, as well as, before this Court.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff was serving in Primary Health Centre Moorang, as midwife. She has purchased the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 51/31 min, Khasra No. 381/2 measuring 0-02-47 hectares situated in Mauza Yubarangi, Tehsil Kalpa Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. alongwith two metres wide approach path bearing Khasra No. 380/1 out of land bearing Khasra No. 381/2 from defendants No. 3 and 4 for a sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/-. Further, it is alleged that mutation was attested in her favour on 24.1.1994 and the possession of the land was handed over to her by defendants 3 and 4. Further, in alternative her case was that in case she fails to prove the purchase of 2 meters wide passage denoted by Khasra No. 380/1, the same may be treated as an express grant. It is also alleged that on account of her being in service and posted at Primary Health Centre Moorang, she only sometimes used to visit Reckong Peo. Taking undue advantage of her absence from Reckong Peo, appellants/defendants started digging Khasra No. 380/1, 2 meters wide passage/path, which leads to Khasra No. 381/2. In case appellants/defendants succeed in doing so it will diminish the value of plaintiff's land and she will suffer irreparable loss and injury which may not be compensated in terms of money. She prayed that the passage in question requires to be restored to its original position by demolishing the pillars/slabs raised by the defendants.

(3.) Defendants 2 and 3 did not contest the suit.