BHISHAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed, against, the impugned verdict recorded, upon, Civil Appeal No.47 of 2003, by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby, it reversed the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, Civil Suit No.86/1 of 2001, whereunder, the latter Court, had, decreed the plaintiff's suit, for rendition of a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. It is averred that she is resident of ward No.1 near temple Shree Naina Devi Ji and is in possession of suit property. It was averred that late Shri Roshan Lal, father-in-law of the plaintiff was owner of huge property including building at different places at Shree Naina Devi Ji consisting of more than 80 rooms. Defendant No.1 had contracted second marriage which was illegal and void, and, therefore, to keep peace in the family in 1986, Roshan Lal, father-in-law of the plaintiff had given the suit property to the plaintiff, who was put in possession of the same also and continued in possession of the same. Roshan Lal died in 1998 and the plaintiff had been enjoying the suit property given in her maintenance and as a charge created against this property. It was further alleged that in March, 2001, defendants started interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and plaintiff approached the Municipal Panchayat of Shri Naina Devi Ji in which compromise was arrived at and it was agreed that the management of the suit property will remain in the hands of the plaintiff who will be entitled to all the income from the suit property and will pay allowances to her husband for his maintenance. It was further alleged that in the first week of Aug., 2001, defendants started interfering in possession of the plaintiff and she lodged a complaint with S.D.M. Bilaspur and in Oct., 2001, the defendants have again threatened to dispossess her forcibly from the suit property, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, estoppel and jurisdiction They also pleaded that the plaintiff was not the wife of defendant No.1. Defendants further pleaded that the plaintiff was not resident of Shree Naina Devi Ji, nor she was in possession of the suit land. The property of deceased has been inherited by defendants, whereas, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is residing near Ghanahati, District Shimla, where she is employed as a teacher and suit property was never given to her by any person, and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.