TEK CHAND Vs. GOVIND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Regular Second Appeal stands directed by the defendant/appellant herein against the impugned rendition of the learned District Judge, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendant/appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chmaba, District Chamba, H.P., whereby the latter Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant/appellant herein stands aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Chamba. His standing aggrieved, he has therefrom preferred the instant appeal before this Court for seeking from this Court an order reversing the findings recorded therein.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the defendant from interfering and raising the construction over the land comprised in khasra No.2648/210, khata/khatauni No.172/226, measuring 0-9 biswa, situated in Mohal Rajnagar, Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P. The claim of the plaintiff is that he is owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant is stranger to the suit land, having no right, title or interest in it. The defendant has started collecting construction material with intent to raise the construction over the suit land. The defendant was requested to desist from his illegal designs, but of no avail. It has also been pleaded that in case the defendants succeeds to raise the construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit, in that eventuality, the construction so raised be ordered to be demolished.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua the plaintiff having not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material fact that the suit land was exchanged by the father of the plaintiff namely Raju with one late Smt. Gauri, who in lieu of it, parted with the land comprised in Khasra No.2114 in his favour in the year 1978, and thereafter Smt. Gauri Gave the suit land to the defendant, who got the electric meter installed in the year 1981. On merits it is pleaded that the plaintiff is not owner in possession of the suit land. The suit land was given in exchange by the father of the plaintiff to Smt. Gauri. Since, the said Gauri gave this land to the defendant, as such, he raised the construction of three shops and one house over the suit land in the presence of the father of the plaintiff. Mutation No.850 qua the exchange of the suit land with the land comprised in khasra No.2114 was entered but the same was rejected on 18.2.1986 due to non appearance of the parties. The possession of the defendant is adverse and hostile to the knowledge of the plaintiff, as such, the replying defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.