CHAMAN LAL Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 2.5.1998 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1996 setting aside judgment, decree dated 25.6.1996 passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class (I), Amb in Case No. 374 of 1986.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Baldev Singh and Sant Ram filed a suit for injunction against Chaman Lal and Banarsi Dass regarding land measuring 2 Kanals 19 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 111min, Khatauni No. 191min, Khasra No. 218 village Ladoli, Tehsil Amb, District Una vide Jamabandi 1983 -84. In the alternative, suit for possession in case defendants succeed in taking possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit and for mandatory injunction for demolition of structure raised by defendants.

(3.) I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2(a) to 2(e) and gone through the record. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that Local Commissioner allegedly inspected the spot without notice and in absence of Chand Rani defendant, who was not even party in the suit at the time of inspection and demarcation report Ext.PW -2/J in these circumstance cannot be read in evidence against Chand Rani and her heirs. He has submitted that in case report Ext.PW -2/J is excluded then there is no legal evidence on record in support of the case of the respondents that appellants had raised construction after encroaching their land. He has submitted that construction is old and was raised in presence of respondents which was not objected to by them and even if the construction of appellant is found on a portion of land of the respondents in that case also the respondents are not entitled to restoration of possession of that portion of land which is under the construction on the principle of acquiescence. He has submitted that the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. On the contrary, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondents, has supported the impugned judgment, decree. He has submitted that Local Commissioners report was assailed by Chand Rani by way of CR. No. 30 of 1995 and the Local Commissioners report was upheld by this Court in CR No. 30 of 1995. He has submitted that the learned District Judge has considered the material on record and appellants have failed to make out any case for interference. He has submitted that respondents have filed cross -objections against the judgment, decree to the extent that learned District Judge has not granted the relief to the respondents. Substantial Questions of Law No. (i), (ii), (iv) & (vi) :