TILAK RAJ AND OTHERS Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (Camp at Dehra) on 05.07.2016, whereby he confirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. and restrained the petitioners/defendants from raising construction over the suit land.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and alongwith the said suit filed a separate application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction to restrain the petitioners/defendants from changing the nature in any manner and raising any construction on the land comprised in Khata No.24 min, Khatauni No.57min, Khasra Nos. 1340 and 1341, area 0-05-90 hectares, situated in Mohal and Mauza Kanol, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. It is alleged that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the parties alongwith other co-sharers and the same was not yet legally partitioned by metes and bounds and, therefore, the petitioners/defendants had no right to change its nature and raising construction over the same till partitioned. But the petitioners/defendants started collecting construction material, marking the same and also started digging the earth on the suit land on 21.06.2014 to raise construction and thereby changed the nature of the suit land which was situated on 'Dhaliara-Dadasiba' PWD road which is of high commercial value. Hence, the application.

(3.) The petitioners/defendants contested the application by filing reply whereby it is alleged that the parties are in separate possession on the spot pursuant to a family settlement. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 had an old ancestral house which was in a dilapidated condition and he wanted to raise new construction which was being raised by him over Khasra No.1340 was not on the roadside. He further alleged that the house being constructed by him was over an area far less than his share.