SATPAL SINGH Vs. RAKSHA PAL KAUNDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, it is not necessary to delve into the facts in detail Suffice it to state that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief for permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that they had purchased a residential plot in the area of village Rakh Ghansol from predecessor-in-title of defendants No. 4 to 7, deceased Shri Fazal Deen son of Shri Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes Wazir Deen through different sale deeds and at that time, the owner Shri Fazal Deen kept passage to the said plots, which is subject matter of this suit bearing tatima Khasra No. 431/257/2/2/2/2/2/2/3 (0-2 biswa) and Khasra No. 427/256/2/2/2/2/3 (0-1 biswa), presently bearing Khasra Nos. 579/431/257 (0-1 biswa) comprised in Kh/Kht Nos. 149/156 and remaining part of the passage 0-1 biswa out of land presently beaing Khasra Nos. 580/431/257/2 and 0-1 biswa out of land presently bearing Khasra No. 563/427/256 comprised in Kh/Kht Nos. 12 min/17 min, situated in village Rakh Ghansol, Pargana and Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. as described in copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02. Therefore, the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 were wrong null and void. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have amended their plaint and sought relief of mandatory injunction for restraining the defendants from raising the construction over the suit land.

(2.) Defendants No. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it was averred that the plaintiffs might have purchased the property through different sale deeds but it was denied for want of knowledge that Shri Fazal Deen i.e. predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 4 had kept the passage through suit property.

(3.) The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the appeals preferred against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. It is the defendant alone who has preferred the present appeal and as observed above, the same now stands compromised between the parties.