CHARAN DASS Vs. HET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2007 dated 09.06.2008, vide which learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1 Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 60-I/2004 decided on 16.03.2007, whereby learned trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for vacant possession.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 28.08.2008 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants Charan Dass, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for vacant possession against the respondents/ defendants, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, on the pleadings that land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 225 min/262 min, Khasra No. 888 measuring 0-5-2 Bigha, situated in Mauja Kehar/ 290, Ill. Rajgarh-Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., was owned and possessed by him and that he was having his residential house on a portion of the same, whereas the remaining suit land was being used by the plaintiff as courtyard and kitchen garden. As per the plaintiff, defendants without any right, title or interest over the suit land, had started causing interference over the same with a motive to raise construction thereupon w.e.f. 04.11.2004. It was further mentioned by the plaintiff that as he was serving in District Kullu, he was unaware about the illegal object of the defendants. He was intimated by his family members telephonically regarding illegal interference and encroachment over the suit land by the defendants and thereafter when the plaintiff came on leave on 12.11.2004, he found that the defendants had encroached upon his land measuring 0-1-10 Bigha by carrying out illegal construction over Khasra No. 888/1. Despite his request, defendants did not restraint themselves from raising illegal construction on his land and in these circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for the following reliefs:-