KESHAV RAM Vs. SUPI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has come in second appeal against the judgment, decree dated 24.5.1999 passed by the District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 3/1999 affirming judgment, decree dated 11.11.1998 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu exercising the powers of Sub Judge 1st Class, Kullu in Civil Suit No. 22 of 1997.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that appellant had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent alleging that he is co-owner in joint possession of land to the extent of 17/24 shares comprised in khasra No. 795, khata khatauni No. 84 min/136 min measuring 0-4 biswas Phati Balh, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu. It was pleaded that some Kahu trees were standing on the suit land. The leaves and branches of such trees were being used by him as fodder for cattle and fuel purposes. The respondents without any right, title and interest were creating boundary dispute and started causing unlawful interference in possession of the appellant over the suit land and they were also threatening to cut and damage the Kahu trees standing on the suit land. On those facts, the appellant filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.

(3.) The suit was contested by respondents by filing a written statement. They took preliminary objections of lack of cause of action in favour of the appellant, the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed true and material facts, the appellant is not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction as the appellant has filed the suit malafidely in order to harass the respondents. On merits, respondents denied the case of the appellant. It was pleaded that adjacent to suit land is Government land, which was encroached by Mani Chand predecessor-ininterest of the respondents about 50 years ago, Mani Chand planted Kahu trees on the encroached land and fenced it for using the produce of said Kahu trees. The said encroached land is now in possession of respondents along with Kahu trees, the appellant has no concern with the said land and trees. The respondents never interfered on the suit land. The appellant filed replication and while denying the case of the respondents, reiterated his case set-up in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: