SATYA DEVI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs instituted suit(s), for, permanent prohibitory injunction, seeking therethrough(s) hence rendition, of, a decree, vis ? ?-vis, the defendants, qua theirs being restrained, from, interfering with or alienating, and, changing, the, nature, of, the suit Khasra Nos. The afore espoused relief(s), in the apposite, suits, were, declined, by the learned Civil Judge concerned. In separate appeals, instituted therefrom, hence by the aggrieved plaintiffs, , before the learned first appellate Court concerned, rather both suffered, an alike fate, of, verdicts, of, dismissal, as also made respectively, upon Civil suit Nos. 122/1 of 2003, and, upon civil suit No. 2/1 of 2004. The contesting defendants, in both the afore suits, are the ones, as enumerated, in, the memo of parties, appended with the verdicts, as, stood rendered, by the learned Civil Judge concerned, hence thereon(s). However, Kuldeep Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar, are, the sons of Paras Ram, and, the latter, is, the pre-deceased husband, of, the plaintiff, one Satya Devi, and, the afore sons of the plaintiff, were arrayed, as performa respondents/defendants, in Civil Suit No. 122/1 of 2003. Since, there is hence commonality, of, interest interse the plaintiff, and, the afore impleaded performa defendants, in the apposite civil suit(s), (i) thereupon, upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, obviously, Satya Devi became the aggrieved therefrom, and also hence the performa defendants concerned, namely, Kuldeep Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, and, Vijay Kumar, hence, holding commonality, of, interest with the plaintiff, also became aggrieved, from, the verdict(s), hence dismissing the plaintiffs' suit(s). However, Satya Devi, also independently, instituted civil appeal No. 48 of 2005 and also, hers, alongwith Kuldeep Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, and, Vijay Kumar, instituted Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2005, challenging therethrough(s), the, verdict(s), of, dismissal, of, the plaintiff one Satya Devi's suit(s), hence by the learned Civil Judge concerned, and, both the afore appeals, were dismissed, and, consequently, in an alike manner, RSAs No. 55 of 2007, and, RSA No. 60 of 2007, were instituted, before this Court. Since both the appeals involve common questions, of, fact and, of, law, hence both are amenable, for, a common verdict being recorded thereon.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the dispute between the parties is the land comprising of Khata khatoni No. 67/73, Khasra No. 738/562, measuring 15.9 bighas, Khata Khatauni No 55/60, Khasra No. 809/559, measuring 7.16 bighas Khata khatoni No. 70/76 to 78 kitas 7,measuring 9.9 bighas, Khata khatoni No. 73/89, Khasra No. 407, measuring 5.18 bighas and Khata khatoni No. 71/79 to 87, kitas 11,measuring 23.5 bighas, situated in village Nalag, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, vide copy of Jamabandi for the year 2000-01. The plaintiff filed civil suit against the defendants in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bilaspur, for seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants No. 1 to 6 from interfering, transferring, alienating and changing the nature of the suit land touching the best portion, situated on the road side and also from dispossessing the plaintiff and proforma defendants from their respective share till the land is partitioned, and in the alternative for possession if the contesting defendants succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land and that if the contesting defendants succeeded in alienating any part of the suit land exceeding to their share then the same may be declared null and void and the possession thereof be restored to the plaintiff and proforma defendants, in its original nature. It was averred that the plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the suit land alongwith the defendants and proforma defendants and that the defendants have limited share in the suit land. The defendants are resourceful persons and are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the best part of the suit land. It is further averred that the defendants were requested not to interfere and alienate the part of the suit land which is in possession of the plaintiff, but the defendants are threatening to sell the best part of the suit land and dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants abutting the road side and the plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering, raising construction, changing the nature and dispossessing the plaintiff and proforma defendants till the land is finally partitioned proceedings of which are pending before the A.C. 1st Grade, Bilaspur. It is also averred that the defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land which is in possession of the plaintiff. The defendants were called upon not to cause any interference and dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land, but they are adamant and did not accede the request of the plaintiff, but on their refusal and failure to do so, the present suit came to be filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The suit was contested and resisted by the contesting defendants No. 1 to 6 by filing joint written statement. It is denied that the parties are in joint possession of the suit land. It is also denied that the defendants have very little share in the suit land. However, it is pleaded that the defendants are in possession of the land which was developed by them. It is denied that the defendants have ever threatened the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the land exclusively possessed by the defendants and as such, the plaintiff has no legal right to restrain the defendants from aliening the land which is in their possession and they have the legal right to alienate the suit land to the extent of their share. It is also pleaded that the defendants are in possession of the land as per the family arrangement and that cannot be disturbed since the defendants have spent huge amount on the development of the land. The defendants have denied that they are threatening to raise construction since the possession are separate and the partition proceedings has been terminated which order was never challenged by the plaintiff and have become final. The plaintiff filed the replication whereby she has re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments made in the plaint and denied the contents of the written statement.