NIRMAL SINGH Vs. BHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction, besides, for rendition, of, a decree for mandatory injunction, stood partly decreed, by the learned trial Court, and, till dismemberment of the joint estate inter se the parties at contest, the plaintiff, was, held entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the aggrieved defendant, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter partly allowed, the appeal, and, modified the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as, pronounced by the learned trial Court, only to the extent of the defendant, being restrained from causing any interference, in, the settled possession of the plaintiff, as, reflected in the apt revenue records, till, the apt joint estate stands partitioned. However, the findings of the learned trial Court, upon, issue No.2 to 6, were affirmed. The plaintiff, is aggrieved therefrom, and, by casting the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court hence strives to beget its reversal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the subject matter of the dispute between the parties is that the land measuring 46-14 bighas, comprising of Khasra Nos. 717, 817, 1115, 1118, 675, 1114, 818, 1108, 1111, 1117, 1120, 1555/1166, 674, 1113, 821, 1109, 1112 and 1119, Kita 18, entered in Khewat No.409, Khatauni Nos. 517 to 522, in mauza Dabat Majari, Pargana Kot Kehloor, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. It is alleged that the plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the suit land along with other o-sharers. Since, the other co-sharers are not raising any construction, as such, they have not been impleaded as party. It is averred that the defendant is threatening to raise forcible construction near the house of the plaintiff, and the defendant has no right whatsoever to raise any construction in the joint land till the land is finally partitioned in accordance with law and the defendant is also threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from his share in the suit land and has further prayed that the construction which as been raised by the defendant be also demolished. It is further alleged that the defendant was requested several times to not interfere with the joint possession of the plaintiff and to admit his claim in the suit land and the failure and refusal of the defendant to do so, the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has denied that the suit land is joint qua the parties. It is pleaded by the defendant that the suit land has already been partitioned in the family settlement and at present, the parties are in their separate possession of the suit land. It is further averred that the plaintiff is owner of the land to the extent of his share which is already occupied by him in Khewat No.409, Khatoni No. 522 where he has constructed a house and is in exclusive possession of Khasra No.821, 1109, 1112, 1119, land measuring 11-15 bighas. It is further pleaded that the defendant is in exclusive possession of the land of Khasra No.818, 1108, 1111, 1117 and 1120, land measuring 11-12 bighas. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff started disturbing the boundary marks of the land which is recorded in the exclusive possession of the defendant. The defendant has also denied of causing any type of interference with the possession of the plaintiff of his share in the suit land, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.