RAVINDER PANWAR Vs. VARINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 4/4/2008, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dtd. 11/9/2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from raising construction in the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 22/27, kita-28, measuring 36.2 bighas, situated at village Shillar, Pargna Lachdang, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) as per the Jamabandi for the year 1992-93. It was asserted that the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant are joint owners in possession of the suit land. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, namely Sh. Musaddi became the owner of the Khasra No. 107/1 measuring 06 biswa, described as toda in the revenue record after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act Mutation to this effect was attested on 13/7/1976. The defendants started raising construction without obtaining demarcation. The plaintiff asked the defendants not to raise any construction without taking the demarcation. He also served a notice upon defendant No.1 to this effect. However, the defendant continued with the construction and constructed a kitchen in Khasra No. 195/107, taking advantage of the plaintiff 's absence. Hence, a civil suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing a written statement. It was admitted that Musaddi alias Musaddi Lal was the owner-inpossession of Khasra No. 107/1 measuring 06 biswa. It was asserted that a residential house existed on the suit land, and no threats were advanced. The suit was frivolous and not maintainable. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.