RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. ARYA SAMAJ, NURPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants, claiming therein a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit of the plaintiff stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the defendant(s) before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereupon, it concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the defendants/appellants herein are driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Arya Samaj Nurpur through its President filed suit for injunction restraining defendants, their family members, agents, servants etc., from raising any type of construction and interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff over the land comprised in Khata No.449, Khatauni No.544 min, Khasra Nos. 159, 161, 160, 171 and 172,measuring 375.60 sq. meters situated in Ward No.3, Up Mohal Swarg Ashram, Nurpur. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land and defendants are strangers to the suit land. It is further pleaded that defendants are very forceful person and in order to grab the suit land, they are threatening to forcible raise construction over the suit land. It is further pleaded that defendants have stacked construction material such as bricks over the suit land, whereas, defendants have got no right and authority to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that plaintiff asked defendants not to interfere in the suit land but they did not accept its request.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia there being no averment that Jagdish Chand being authorised to file the present sui, no resolution of Arya Samaj Committee to file the present suit having been placed on record, maintainability, plaint liable to be returned, locus standi, cause of action, revenue entries being fake and suit being vexatious and liable to be dismissed. On merits, the claim of the plaintiff is denied. It has been pleaded that plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit land. Defendant No.2 with the permission of rest of the defendants to the extent of his share had raised foundation to plinth level for construction one room, adjoining to another already built 15 years ago on khasra No.163. It has been averred that plaintiff has nothing to do with khasra No.163, measuring 414.17 sq. meters.