BHASKAR DUTT Vs. NARPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant becoming aggrieved, from the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both, the learned Courts below, respectively, upon Civil suit No. 136/1 of 2014, and, latter upon Civil Appeal No. 90-CA/13 of 2017, and, where through(s), the espoused decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-vis, the suit khasra Nos, and, against the defendants, became, concurrently rendered, hence for striving to beget reversal(s), thereof, rather instituted thereagainst, the instant regular second appeal, before this Court. Uncontrovertedly, the contesting litigants, are owners in possession, of, the apposite adjoining estates. A perusal of Ext. PW1/B underscores, vis-vis, the suit khasra Nos. hence becoming jointly owned, and, possessed, by the plaintiff, alongwith other coowners, and therein the defendant remain unreflected, to be co-owner, alongwith the plaintiff, and, the recorded therealongwith him hence coowners. The afore echoing(s), borne in Ext. PW1/B, enjoy a presumption of truth, and, with the defendant, upon, his stepping into the witness box, remaining reticent, vis-vis,the, aura of truth, enjoyed by the afore entries, borne in Ext.PW1/B, becoming denuded, vis-vis, their sanctity nor with his adducing any cogent thereto discharging evidence (a) thereupon, the inevitable conclusion(s), hence ensuing therefrom, is, qua the plaintiff becoming, the, aptly recorded hence co-owner, alongwith the other recorded coowners vis-vis, the suit khasra Nos, (c) and also, qua the defendants holding no right, title or interest, in the suit khasra Nos. Resultantly, also, the afore reflections hence enjoy an aura of conclusivity. Though, the defendants, could, in their written statement(s), rear a contention, vis-vis, the suit, being mis-constituted, for, wants, of, arraying in the array of co-plaintiffs or in the array of performa defendant, in the extant civil suit, rather the recorded alongwith him, hence other co-owners, (d) yet, the afore contention, remains, un-espoused by the defendants, in their written statement(s), instituted to the plaint, (e) wherefrom this Court is constrained to conclude, vis-vis, the extant suit, becoming aptly instituted by the plaintiff, for, the benefit of other co-owners, (f) besides, also leads to the conclusion, qua his espousal, qua his holding exclusive possession, vis-vis, the suit khasra Nos, dehors no valid dismemberment, of, the un-divided suit khasra Nos., hence, occurring, rather also holding an aura of tenacity.

(2.) Be that as it may, the defendants, were, hence dis-empowered, to mete threatening(s), to, the plaintiff, qua theirs, making interference(s), in, the suit khasra Nos, and also were barred, from, pro-actively, making overt steps, for, appropriating, vis-vis, their user, hence, the suit khasra Nos. However, the averments in the plaint, vis-vis, the defendants, rather on 23.10.2014, entering upon the suit land, and, also theirs' thereat, proceeding, to cut the growing thereon grass (a) besides when making, of, apt resistances, are, averred, and, also, are un-erodingly testified, vis-vis, the afore invasive, and, incursive acts, upon, the suit land, hence by the defendants, rather by the son(s), of the plaintiff(s), yet the afore resistance(s),also become testified, to, remain un-heeded. Furthermore, since, in sequel, to the afore incursive acts, as, made by the defendant, upon the suit khasra Nos, a complaint, was, made on 21.10.2014, hence by the plaintiffs, to the SHO,Police Station, Renuka Ji, (b) and, yet, the defendants, on 7.12.2014, , re-recoursing, the, afore invasive incursive acts, as earlier made upon, the suit khasra Nos, and, when the afore pleaded incursive acts, are, also proven, by, the un-eroded deposition(s), rendered by the plaintiff, and, by his witnesses, (c) thereupon, the making, of, the afore incursive acts upon the suit khasra Nos., by the defendants, especially when they hold, no right, title or interest thereon, and, when rendition, of, decrees of permanent prohibitory injunction, hence conjointly by both the learned Courts below, against the defendants, were challengeable, by the, aggrieved defendants, upon pleadings becoming made and, also upon the apt evidence becoming adduced, before the learned trial Judge, (d)as comprised in after a valid demarcation, becoming carried, upon those tracts of lands, qua wherewith, the plaintiff, is, the, recorded co-owner alongwith other co-owners, hence the, afore disputed tracts, of, land, rather becoming pronounced, to be, validly owned and possessed, by the defendants. However, the afore pleadings, are neither embodied in the written statement(s), instituted to the plaint, nor obviously any evidence qua therewith, became adduced. Consequently, the afore ommisisons, constrain this Court, to, draw a conclusion, vis-vis, the proven incursive acts, made by the defendants, upon, the suit khasra Nos, becoming untenably made thereon, and, hence, for ensuring qua theirs not becoming repeated, , hence, the rendition, of, decree(s) of permanent prohibitory injunction, becoming amenable, for being pronounced, vis-vis, the defendants, as aptly done, by both, the Courts below. No question of law, muchless any substantial question of law, arises for determination.

(3.) There is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned District Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan, in Civil Appeal No. 90-CA/13 of 2017, hence affirming the judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, upon Civil Suit No. 136/1 of 2014, are, affirmed and maintained. Also, the pending application(s),if any, are also disposed of.