KUMARI MONIKA Vs. BALDEV RAJ & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendantappellant against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) , Kullu, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed by restraining the defendants from causing any interference in any manner, whatsoever in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the double storeyed house situated over the suit land till partition of the joint suit property. At the same time learned trial Court also decreed the counter claim filed by the defendants in the aforesaid suit for permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining the plaintiffs from carrying out any repair for construction work in the aforesaid house in dispute in any manner or change its nature in any manner till the house in dispute is partitioned in accordance with law, however dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendants for mandatory injunction.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffsrespondents (herein after referred to as the 'plaintiffs') , are owners in possession of the suit land as described in the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs purchased two storeyed house situated on this land from Smt.Shanti Devi, as she was in exclusive possession of this property by way of family partition, and in this connection sale deed No.1947 dated 25.10, 2005 was executed inter se the parties. It is further averred that the house, having been purchased by the plaintiffs, has been shown by letters "ABCD" as depicted in site plan attached with the plaint. It is further averred that the defendants are also joint owners in possession of the suit land and they have constructed two storeyed house, as has been shown by letters "DCEF" depicted in the site plan attached with the plaint, on their share after partition, adjoining to the property in question. It is further averred that on 18.04.2006, plaintiffs started carrying out repair work of the house in question, but, defendants, who are quarrelsome persons, have started causing illegal interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs qua the house in question. The plaintiffs averred that they have requested the defendants not to cause illegal interference in their ownership and possession qua the property in question, but in vain. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiffs have sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to the effect that defendants be restrained from causing illegal interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff's qua the property in question.

(3.) Defendants, by way of filing written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground of maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, and claimed that the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. They also filed counter claim against the plaintiffs. On merits, the defendants have admitted that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and two storeyed house exists on the suit land, but the defendants denied that said house was in the exclusive possession of Smt.Shanti Devi. It is averred in the written statement that predecessor-in-interest of defendants and proforma defendant, namely; Bir Singh and husband of Smt.Shanti Devi, namely; Amar Dev had been working together in Lahaul & Spiti in the same Department and they were having cordial and family relations with each other. It is averred that the said Amar Dev was sentenced to imprisonment in rape case in the year 1986-87 and he remained in jail till 199 It is the claim of the defendants that Bir Singh purchased suit land on 24.9.1987 to the extent of half share in his name and in the name of his family members and remaining half share was purchased by him in the name of Smt.Shanti Devi and in this connection, a sum of Rs.49, 500/- was paid. In the year 1989, said Bir Singh constructed two storeyed house on this land by spending huge amount. As, at the relevant time, Amar Dev husband of Smt.Shanti Devi was in jail, Bir Singh permitted Smt.Shanti Devi to live in his house as a family member without payment of rent. After the death of Bir Singh, Smt.Shanti Devi alongwith her family members continued to reside in the aforesaid house. However, in the month of August, 2005, Smt.Shanti Devi left the house and in the month of April, 2006, the defendants came to know that Smt.Shanti Devi had sold her share qua the suit land in favour of plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs started causing illegal interference in the property in question. They threatened to dispossess the defendants from the suit property. It is the claim of the defendants that the house in question is in the exclusive possession of the defendants and in this regard the plaintiffs were requested from time to time not to cause illegal interference in the peaceful possession of the defendants qua the property in question, but in vain. It is further claim of the defendants that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in order to grab valuable portion of the house in question. In the aforesaid background the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.