RAMESH CHANDER SEHGAL Vs. SURESH ABROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil 1st Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant against the order dtd. 18/5/2018 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu in File No. 56/Misc. instituted on 23/4/2018 in File No. 41/Civil, whereby the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for grant of interim relief has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant has filed a civil suit for possession of two rooms measuring 12""9' and 12""12' sq.ft each along with a bathroom measuring 6""6' sq.ft. on the first floor of the house of the plaintiff (appellant herein) which are in illegal possession of the defendants situated at plot No. 126-A Near Geeta Mandir Bakshi Nagar, Tehsil and District Jammu along with the same against the proforma defendants (respondents herein) with respect to the accommodation in possession of the proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 6 with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the rest of the portion of the house of the plaintiff which is absolutely in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff (appellant herein) and also from changing the nature of the suit property i.e. the portion of the house which is in illegal possession of the defendants. It is the case of the appellant that the plot No. 126-A was allotted to Smt. Ishro Devi maternal grandmother of the appellant whereas the plot No. 125 was allotted in favour of the father of the appellant. It is also submitted that the said Ishro Devi had adopted the appellant and after her demise, the said plot devolved exclusively upon the appellant in exclusion to all the defendants in the suit.

(3.) The further stand of the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 being the sister of the appellant was permitted to stay in the aforesaid accommodation only by way of permissive possession but with the passage of time, out of share greed to grab the said portion of the property/house, she resorted to the highly low level tactics of creating nuisance for the family of the appellant and refused to vacate the same.