TIKAMCHAND Vs. INDER CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The appellants are aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court dated 25.9.1980 by which the appellate court. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction on facts that the suit property is situated in front of the plaintiffs' house measuring 396 square yards and this land is being used only by the family members of the plaintiffs as the land cannot be used for any other purpose. It is alleged that even no door, window, drain etc. of any person is opening over or in this land. The plaintiffs found that the land measuring 45 square yards has been encroached upon by the defendants and they have constructed a wall. The defendants also opened their doors over this land and they have also constructed drains and projections for which they had no right. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that the defendants may be evicted from the land measuring 45 square yards and the wall which they raised may also be directed to be removed and the defendants may be restrained from opening any door, window, ventilator and may also be restrained from constructing drain or outlet or projection. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff submitted an application before the Gram Panchayat of the Village for obtaining the patta of the said land in dispute upon which the patta was granted in favour of the plaintiffs on payment of cost for land Rs.1,026/-. The plaintiffs amended the suit and pleaded the facts of purchase of disputed land from the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) The defendants submitted written statement with a plea that in fact, they purchased the house from one Dhapu Devi and while constructing their house, they left some open land also. 45 square yards land for which claim has been set up by the plaintiffs falls within the pattasud land of the defendants and rest of the land is a subject matter of the suit, according to the defendants, is part of a public chowk and it is being used by the residents of the area. The defendants submitted that the plaintiffs did not purchase the land from the Gram Panchayat nor the Panchayat had right to sell the land nor the Collector had right to approve the same. In additional pleas, it is submitted that the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to sell the land in dispute and because of the sale, the plaintiffs have got no right in the land in question. The defendants in additional pleas further pleaded that 45 square yard land, which is in possession of defendants, had boundaries but because of rain, that boundary fell down. Thereafter, Smt. Dhapu after including her some other land towards chowk so as to make it 49 square yards, sold the land to the defendants who constructed wall after leaving 49 square yards of land as open. On this pleas, the defendants contested the suit. Several issues were framed by the trial court on the basis of the pleas taken by the parties which are not necessary to be incorporated in this judgment looking to the controversy now remained after the decision of two courts below.