KASTURO DEVI Vs. PARMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This is defendants Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul -Spiti Districts at Mandi, whereby the judgment and decree of injunction passed in Civil Suit No. 86/1984, dated 30 -8 -1986, by Sub -Judge 1st Class, Court No. If, Mandi, District Mandi in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants has been upheld.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Parma Ram plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the plea that and comprised in Khasra No. 116, 120, 189 and 199 measuring 17 -12 -10 bighas situate in Mauza Kasarla of lllaqa Balh, District Mandi is recorded in the joint ownership of the plaintiff, defendants No. 5 and 6 and one Mast Ram as well as proforma defendant Pratap Singh. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that this land was in possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendant Partap Singh qua their own shares and qua the shares of other defendants, both of them are recorded as non -occupancy tenant as per Jamabandi for the year 1979 -80. In these circumstances, the plaintiff claimed tenancy over the land which was in the shares of defendants No. 1,5,6 and Mast Ram. Further case of the plaintiff was that since he was non -occupancy -tenant qua the shares of the said defendants and Mast Ram, thus, by operation of law i. e. H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, be as well as proforma defendant Pratap Singh became owners. In this background since according to plaintiff, the defendants were stated to be causing interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question by the plaintiff and proforma defendant, as such, the necessity of filing of t he suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has arisen thereby prayer was made to restrain the defendants from causing any interference over the suit land of the plaintiff.