SEES RAM Vs. MEHAR SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from raising construction besides changing the nature of the suit land borne in Khasra No.1281/1244/870, measuring 9 biswa 3 biswansi. The Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. The Plaintiff being aggrieved therefrom, preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 11FT/13 of 2005/2004, before the learned first Appellate Court, appeal whereof also suffered an alike fate. Codefendant No.1 Mehar Singh also assailed the judgement and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court by preferring an appeal therefrom before the learned first Appellate Court, wherein, he contended that with the learned trial Court accepting the report of the Local Commissioner, borne in Ex.PW3/A wherewith stood appended statements of the contesting parties with communications therein "of" in a takshim khangi, the residential houses located upon the suit property falling respectively to the shares of one Narain Dass and one Mehar Singh, thereupon, it was befitting for the learned First Appellate Court to order that on partition thereof occurring, his share therein being protected besides in commensuration thereof physical possession thereto, be delivered to him. However, the aforesaid contention reared by co-defendant Mehar Singh upon Civil Appeal No. 12FT/13 of 2005/2004 stood rejected by the learned first Appellate Court. However, Mehar Singh has not assailed the judgement pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 12FT/13 of 2005/2004, whereby it stood dismissed. Contrarily, Sees Ram, who instituted Civil Appeal No.11FT/13 of 2005/2004 before the learned First Appellate Court, whereby he assailed the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court, is aggrieved by a common judgement therewith pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 11FT/13 of 2005/2004, hence, through the instant appeal concerts to beget its reversal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit was filed to restrain defendants Mansa Ram and Narain Dass from dispossessing the plaintiff from or raising any construction on or changing the nature of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.51/65 min, Khasra No.1281/1244/870, measuring 9 biswa 3 biswansi situated in Mauza Darwa, Sub Tehsil Kuthar, District Solan, H.P. The plaintiff averred that the land in suit was in joint possession of parties, and that defendants No.1 and 2 had started construction, which if allowed to continue would result not only in change in nature of land but would also result in ousting the plaintiff from best piece of land.

(3.) Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement challenging the maintainability of suit on grounds of non joinder of parties, form of suit and locus standi of plaintiff. They denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and that on the other hand it was in their possession by virtue of a formal settlement cum family parties. The further pleaded that there existed on old house on the suit land constructed by defendant No.1 Mansa Ram. At the settlement the house alongwith vacant land was allotted to Mansa Ram and Narain Dass. A two storeyed house was allotted to plaintiff. Defendants pleaded that they had every right to renovate/reconstruct the house.