ROOP CHAND Vs. MAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal is maintained by the appellant, who was defendant before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as "defendant"), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 19.6.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P, in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2017, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 1.3.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, District Kullu, in Civil Suit No.104 of 2012, was affirmed, wherein suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff") maintained a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the defendant alleging therein that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of land measuring 0-00-52 hectares, comprised in Khasra No.3847/633/1, Khata/Khatauni No.67 min/90 min, situated in Muhal and Phati Baragran, Kothi Baragarh, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P; (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') while the defendant alongwith other co-sharers, is owner-in-possession of the land measuring 0-00-36 hectares, comprised in Khasra Nos.633/2 and 633/3 in the same Muhal and Phati. It was alleged that mutation of partition qua suit land was attested and sanctioned on 24.9.2005 and since then, the plaintiff is using the suit land, as a path. Further, it was alleged that the defendant intended to encroach upon the suit land by raising two pillars thereon.

(3.) Defendant resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement and raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it is submitted that the defendant has not denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land. However, existence of the path, at the spot, has been denied by disputing the correctness of revenue entries, which have been changed during settlement by the plaintiff in connivance with the revenue officials. Raising of any construction over the suit land has also been denied by the defendant.