PARAS RAM THROUGH HIS LRS Vs. KISHORE CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit bearing No. 204 of 1992, wherethrough, he espoused, for, rendition of a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants, and, qua the stood khasra numbers, stood decreed, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Hamirpur, H.P. However, in an appeal, carried therefrom, by the aggrieved defendants, before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, the latter Court, upon Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2004, made a verdict in reversal, vis-a-vis, the verdict recorded, by the trial Court concerned, and, obviously proceeded, to, dismiss the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The deceased plaintiff, through his LRs, has, through the instant appeal, hence, cast a challenge, upon, the verdict recorded, by the learned first appellate Court, and, also strives, to, beget reversal thereof.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein (for short the plaintiff) had filed a suit seeking rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that he is the owner as well as tenant in possession of Khasra No. 52/2 measuring 1K-12 M out of the land comprised in khata No. 86 min, Khatoni No. 94, khasra No. 52 measuring 1K-14 M as described in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1986-87 situated in Tika Kangru Tappa Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (for short "suit khasra numbers") and the defendants be restrained from making interference over the suit khasra numbers in any manner. The afore reliefs have been claimed by the plaintiff on the ground that the suit land has been shown in possession of the plaintiff as tenant. One of the owner of the suit land named Sher Singh applied for resumption which was allowed to the extent of 2 marlas vide mutation No. 455, as a result of which the land comprised in khasra No. 52/1 measuring 2 marlas was resumed in favour of Sher Singh and the suit khasra numbers remained with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also given and conferred proprietary rights qua the share of Shamsher Singh to the extent of 2 marlas vide mutation No. 454 out of the suit khasra numbers of which he became owner and continued to be tenant in respect of rest of the land in question. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit Khasra numbers, however defendant No.1 tried to cause interference and threated to take forcible possession of the suit khasra numbers.