DHARAM PAL AND OTHERS Vs. LALMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge, Kishangarh Baas (Alwar) (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court'), dated 27.02.1997 in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 67/1991 whereby the judgment and decree passed by Munsif Magistrate, Kishangarh Baas (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') dated 01.09.1990 in Civil Suit No. 43/1987 were set aside and appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the suit for demolition and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellants before the trial court wherein it is mentioned that the disputed property which has been shown by Blue colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint and marked as ABCD situated in village Begheri Kalan, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, is an ancestral property of the plaintiff and they are the owners and are in actual possession of the same. It is also alleged in the plaint that on the eastern side after leaving some space, the property of the defendants is situated which has been shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint by Green colour. In the said site plan, the property shown by Red colour belongs to the plaintiffs and defendants have constructed a boundary wall. It is prayed that the defendants may be directed, to demolish the said boundary wall and a decree of a permanent injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing the written statement. They have denied the plaint allegation. It is alleged in the written statement that property in question belongs to the defendant-Richhpal and he is in possession of the said property. Land shown on western side of BC belongs to the defendants. The eastern side of ABCD land also belongs to the defendants and the northern side of the property belongs to the defendants. The property shown by Red colour and marked as ABCD belongs to Richhpal, who is in physical possession since the time of ancestors. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as five issues. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence on the issues. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the learned trial court had decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and consequently decree of permanent injunction and demolition of wall was passed in favour of the plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court an appeal was preferred by the defendants before the appellate court which came to be allowed on 27.02.1997 and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been set aside.

(3.) Hence, this second appeal.