VARINDER KUMAR Vs. JATINDER MOHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on behalf of the plaintiff is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction has been ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants alleging therein that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are co-owners of the land comprised in Khata No. 53, Khatauni No. 132, Khasra Nos. 1046, 1077, 1078, 1079, measuring 05-66-81 HM, situated in Mohal and Mauza Bharota, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land from the date of its purchase and had purchased the suit land in the year 1990 and paid the whole consideration amount and no consideration amount was paid by defendant No.1, however, the name of defendant No.1 was got recorded by the plaintiff in the column of possession of ownership being brother. It was averred that defendant No.1 never remained in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff made the suit land cultivable after spending huge amount, but the defendant No.1 by taking the advantage of the ownership transferred the suit land to defendant No.2 through sale deed dated 3.9.2013. It was averred that the defendants in connivance with each other are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff by changing the nature of the suit land and the defendants refused to accede the lawful requests of the plaintiff and to admit his claim, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein the preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action, valuation etc. were taken. On merits, while denying the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants contended that defendant No.1 and plaintiff jointly purchased the suit land and defendant No.1 paid half of the consideration amount. The entire suit land is being cultivated by defendant No.1 and after retirement from the Indian Army, the plaintiff is trying to take forcible possession of the suit land without seeking partition of the same. It was averred that the possession of the suit land was delivered to defendant No.1 on the spot on its purchase and he has developed the same by spending huge amount. It was further averred that defendant No.1 sold part of the suit land to defendant No.2 and also handed over the possession of the same to defendant No.2 on the spot and as such, the defendant No.2 is also a co-owner. It was averred that the plaintiff intends to take forcible possession of the suit land. The defendants denied the remaining averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit.