PANNA LAL Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction hence stood dismissed by the learned trial Court, and, the aggrieved plaintiff preferred an appeal, therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, whereon, the latter Court rendered a verdict, hence, decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The defendant is aggrieved therefrom, hence, through the instant appeal cast a challenge thereon.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction with the averments that the land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 492/649 to 653, khasra Nos. 1835,1836, 1843, 1844, 1846, 1837, 1840, 1839, 1841 and 1845, kita 11, measuring 207.63 sq. meters, situated in mauja Tarna/366/5, Tehsil Sadar, District Solan, H.P. is recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff, defendant and other co-sharers. It has been averred that the plaintiff has purchased the land measuring 8.65 sq. meters and mutation to this effect has been entered. The defendant has also purchased share of Smt. Sheela Devi, Rima Devi and Geeta to the extent of 6.49 sq. meters and mutation to this effect has also been attested in favour of the defendant. The suit has land is alleged to have not been partition in due course of law. According to the plaintiff, the defendant w.e.f. 7.4.2004 started making the plot over the joint property in order to raise construction of house without getting the land partitioned and without the consent of the plaintiff and other cosharers. There is also no approval of the plan from the Municipal Council, Mandi. The defendant was requested number of times but all in vain. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action etc. On merits, the description of land is admitted. It is averred that the plaintiff constructed two rooms in the month of July-August, 2004 by covering more area than purchased area. The defendant has purchased old Katchha house from Sheela Devi etc., and when plaintiff started construction adjoining to the said Katchha house, the same was damaged due to rainy water. The defendant felt necessity to repair the said house and necessary construction was done by the defendant which was completed on 20.8.2004. The defendant is co-owner and has got every right to use his share which is in the shape of katchha house already built and to protect the same. The defendant denied other averments contained in the plaint.