LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-160

ATMA RAM Vs. CHAMAN LAL & ANOTHER

Decided On August 23, 2018
ATMA RAM Appellant
V/S
Chaman Lal And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the verdict recorded, upon, Civil Appeal No. 36/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, Una, whereunder, he reversed the verdict recorded, upon, Civil Suit No. 117/I of 2000, by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Amb, District Una, and, rendered a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, and, against the defendants qua the suit khasra numbers.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit with averments that the suit land is jointly owned by the parties along with other cosharers. The suit land is in exclusive hissadari possession of plaintiffs along with their mother and sister. They were previously non-occupancy tenants under Prem Singh etc. The suit land adjoins P.W.D. road and is valuable. The plaintiffs are having exclusive hissadari possession as a result of private arrangement. The defendants are in exclusive possession of land allotted to them by way of arrangement. The defendants have threatened to change nature by raising construction and have also threatened to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit land. They are not competent to raise construction till partition takes place. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua cause of action, suit being bad for non joinder of necessary parties and estoppel etc. The joint character of suit land is not disputed. The revenue entries showing exclusive hissadari possession in the name of plaintiffs are wrong which were effected by revenue staff in an illegal manner in connivance with plaintiffs. The parties and other co-sharers are joint tenants under Prem Singh etc., the erstwhile owners. Some of the tenants had acquired proprietary rights. The possession of the parties is joint. It is admitted that suit land is situated adjacent to PWD road. It is denied that defendants are having exclusive hissadari possession over the land allotted to them in arrangement. The plaintiffs have also raised shed over portion of land. It is denied that defendants have threatened to raise construction. It is also disputed that defendants want to change nature of the suit land.