SUSHEELA Vs. INDER SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, both these appeals arise out of a common verdict pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 30-S/13 of 2004/2002 and in Civil Appeal No. 31-S/13 of 2004/2002, hence, both are liable to be disposed off by a common verdict.

(2.) Rsa No. 116 of 2007 stands directed against the judgment and decree recorded by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 30-S/13 of 2004/2002, whereby, the aforesaid appeal preferred before it by the defendants/respondents herein against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court "stood allowed", whereas, RSA No. 117 of 2007 stands directed against the judgment and decree recorded by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 31-S/13 of 2004/2002, whereby, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred before it by the appellant herein "against" the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court, appeal whereof stood directed against the declining of the relief of mandatory injunction to the plaintiff by the trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Smt. Susheela laid a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and also for mandatory injunction against the defendants on the ground that she is owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1661/1, measuring 4 biswas, situated in Mauza Shangti, Sanjauli, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. She had purchased 4 biswas of land aforesaid out of khasra No.166, measuring 5.1 bighas from its owner through a registered sale deed and after purchase she was put in exclusive possession in a specific portion through a tatima. Smt. Susheela constructed a four storeyed house before January, 1996. Inder Singh also purchased land adjoining to the suit property and raised two lintels. On 8.11.1999, defendants started projection of their construction without leaving set backs and making any arrangement for drainage of water. During the pendency of the suit, it was also pleaded that despite injunction orders defendants continued uanuthorsied construction, raised 3 lintels without prior permission of Town and Country Planning Department and Municipal Corporation Shimla and after January, 2000 extended the projection towards the suit property and put unbearable load on the foundation of the building. This caused danger to the building. The cause of action accrued on 8.11.1999 and still continuing and hence this suit for permanent