SUMAN KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 160/1 of 2006/14, vide which a civil suit filed by the present respondent for permanent prohibitory injunction as also for mandatory injunction stood decreed and the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2017, passed by learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 17-13 of 2017, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession, was filed by the present respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/ defendants on the ground that plaintiff, alongwith other cosharers, was recorded as co-owners in joint possession of the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatoni No. 270/349, Khasra number 328, measuring 0-18 bigha and Khata/Khatoni number 301/353, Khasra number 327, measuring 0-02 bigha, situated in Village Bhapral, Pargna Ajmerpur, Sub Tehsil Bharari, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). According to the plaintiff, defendants who were strangers to the suit land had started raising construction, initially in their own land which was contiguous to the land of the plaintiff, however, thereafter defendants dismantled the beed which was the boundary between the land of the plaintiff and defendants and opened one door towards the courtyard of the plaintiff and also encroached upon the land of the plaintiff by raising construction upon the same. On these pleadings, the suit was filed praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory/ mandatory injunction and in the alternative for possession.

(3.) Defendants contested the case of the plaintiff and took the stand that neither they had encroached over the suit land nor they had demolished any beed on the spot nor casued any interference over the suit land which belonged to the plaintiff.