MOTI RAM Vs. SES RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2005 as well as the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, District Kullu in Civil Suit No. 35/2003-93 of 2004, vide which learned trial Court dismissed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the present appellant and the learned appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 06.07.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff") filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') for permanent prohibitory injunction on the grounds that plaintiff had purchased land measuring 0-0-5 bighas from one Norbu Ram, comprised in Khasra No. 1044/2, Khatauni No. 114 min/360 to the extent of 5/1198 shares in Phati and Kothi Bajaura, situated at village Sharabai Phati and Kothi Bajaura, Tehsil and District Kullu vide registered sale deed No. 535, dated 17.04.2003 and in fact the suit land stood handed over by Norbu Ram to the plaintiff even before the execution of the sale deed and the plaintiff was in continuous possession of the suit land with the consent of said Norbu. It was further the case of the plaintiff that on 09.04.2003, defendants with an ulterior motive and dishonest intention came with a group of 20 to 25 persons and started fencing the suit land without any right or title. The matter was reported to the police and police visited the spot and instructed the parties not to interfere over the suit land till the demarcation of the same was duly carried out. Further, as per the plaintiff, Tehsildar Kullu was requested by the police on 16.04.2003 and Patwari and Kanoongo accordingly came on the spot on 22.4.2003 and demarcated the land in the presence of plaintiff and defendants as well as in the presence of members of Panchayat and police. As per the plaintiff, the suit land was found to be of Norbu Ram, qua which subsequently sale deed stood executed in his favour. It was further the case of the plaintiff that defendants were never in possession over the suit land and that the plaintiff after demarcation had put the boundary wall on the suit land, but despite this, defendants had started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff by removing the retaining wall partly and by taking up quarrel with the plaintiff as well as with his wife. As per the plaintiff, the cause of action arose in his favour on 27.04.2003 when defendants forcibly tried to remove the retaining wall which stood constructed by the plaintiff and on these bases, the plaintiff filed the abovementioned suit praying for the following relief: