MOHAN LAL Vs. RAM CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The appellant's suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 10th July, 1986. However, the appellate court decreed the suit of the plaintiff partly vide judgment and decree dated 20-1-1989. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction as well as for mandatory injunction against the defendants alleging that the property in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff from one Dalchand by sale deed dated 2nd December, 1971, Originally, the property was belonging to one Ranjeet Singh who had Bapi Patta in his favour for the land in question. He sold the land to Dalchand on Poh Sud Samwat year 2012 and Dalchand sold the property to the plaintiff on 2nd December, 1971. According to plaintiff, the defendants encroached upon the part of the plaintiff's land measuring 15'x4' in the West to East side after breaking the wall and also encroached upon the another land measuring 6'x7'. The plaintiff claimed damages of Rs. 200 also.

(3.) The defendants no.2 and 3 remained ex. parts whereas defendant no.1 submitted written statement and claimed his ownership over the property in dispute. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as 5 issues, which are relating to the plaintiff's title to the property and alleged illegal trespass of the defendants over the plaintiff's property on 20-12-1971. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and plaintiff preferred appeal, which was allowed by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 4-8-1984 as the appellate court allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint and remanded the matter to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh. After the amendment of the pleadings, the issue no. 7 was framed, which is relating to the plaintiff's right over the property by prescription. The trial court again dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10th July, 1986. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred appeal. The appellate court after holding that the plaintiff failed to prove title of the property in dispute, decreed the suit for relief of injunction for the property which was in possession of the plaintiff whereas dismissed the suit for injunction with respect to the property, which was found to be in possession of the defendants. The plaintiff, therefore, preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 20-1-1989.