GURDEV SINGH Vs. NARAIN SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal at the instance of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') is directed against judgment and decree dated 27.6.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Una whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2000 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.1,Amb has been reversed.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from raising any sort of construction, taking forcible possession or interfering in any manner in the suit land, more specifically shown by letters ABCDEFG with red Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. in the site plan being part of land of Khasra No.216. The contention of the plaintiff was that he was owner in exclusive Hissadari possession of the suit land and the defendants who were very clever and head strong persons in connivance with the settlement field staff had got the shape of the suit land disfigured with regard to the location and in consequence thereto Karukans of the suit land were reduced on the eastern side. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that during the process of settlement defendants got their land increased thereby causing loss and reduction of the land of the plaintiff. On coming to know about the wrong done by the settlement field staff with regard to the reducing of the area of the plaintiff, he filed an application for correction of Karukans before the Collector Settlement who vide order dated 10.1.1995, ordered the correction to the effect that the area comprised of khasra No.213/3, 214/1 and 215/1 be deleted from the ownership of defendants by adding the same to the ownership of the appellant/plaintiff. The order passed by the Collector was unsuccessfully assailed by the defendants before the Divisional Commissioner.

(3.) Respondents/Defendants contested the suit by raising preliminary objections of non maintainability of the suit and estoppel. In Para No.1 of the written statement the ownership of the suit land being that of the plaintiff/appellant was not disputed. However, it was submitted that the site plan produced by the plaintiff was wrong as he had wrongly included the land of the defendants in the site plan. In nut shell, the stand of the defendants was that the plaintiff wanted to encroach upon the land of the defendants comprised in khasra No.215.