LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-81

ROSHNI DEVI Vs. MAN CHAND

Decided On September 07, 2016
ROSHNI DEVI Appellant
V/S
MAN CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this present appeal, appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2006 dated 30.05.2007, vide which, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 329 of 2002 dated 07.11.2005, whereby the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction filed by the present appellant was dismissed.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 20.06.2008 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against present respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), on the grounds that the suit land comprised in Khata No. 32 min, Khatauni No. 33 min, Khasra No. 304 measuring 4 Kanals 2 Marlas, situated in Tika Punjhali, Tappa Mati-Morian, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, was jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and her son Surinder Kumar and defendant was stranger as far as suit land was concerned and was having no right, title and interest over the same. As per the plaintiff, defendant who was a head-strong and quarrelsome person had collected construction material for the purpose of contracting a latrine and to raise a retaining wall on the suit land. As per plaintiff, for this purpose, defendant also forcibly started digging part of the suit land in the last week of December, 2002. It was on these basis that the suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from raising construction over the suit land and for mandatory injunction in case the defendant succeeded to raise any construction during the pendency of the suit over the suit land.