PARAS RAM Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25. 08. 2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 136-D/XIII/2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28. 07. 2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 1, Dharamshala, whereby civil Suit No. 81 of 2005 having been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff") for Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction, came to be decreed.

(2.) Necessary facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction, restraining the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') from interfering in any manner, whatsoever or changing the nature or raising any construction over the suit land, as described in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below, till the time, same is partitioned among the co-sharers, in accordance with law, by metes and bounds. Plaintiff also sought decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to bring the part of khasra No. 848/7, out of suit land to its original position by demolition of any structure, if found raised forcibly during the pendency of the suit with costs. Plaintiff averred before the Court below that suit land is entered in the joint possession of the plaintiff, defendant and other cosharers and same has never been partitioned by metes and bounds by the competent Court of law. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendant has no right to start digging over the land bearing khasra No. 848/7 for raising new construction or changing the nature of any part of the suit land. He further alleged that the defendant, who is a very clever person, with a mala-fide intention had filed a Civil Suit No. 60/2005 qua part of the suit land i. e. Khata No. 18, titled as Munshi Ram versus Anudeep Kumar and Paras Ram.

(3.) Plaintiff further alleged that the learned trial Court vide order dated 21. 05. 2005 ordered parties to maintain status quo qua khasra No. 855/12, but defendant being head strong person with a mala-fide intention in order to make wrongful gains, forcibly started digging best portion of the land touching the road in khasra No. 848/7 of the suit land for raising new construction. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff sought decree of Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction, restraining the defendant from raising any construction over the best portion of suit land, especially in khasra No. 848/7.