24.01.2025 Dhan Dhan Ba n Bapu Kumbh Dass Ji & Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
Page 1 of 16 16 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 ingh Sukhdev Singh RSA-2205-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.01.2025 Dhan Dhan Ba n Bapu Kumbh Dass Ji & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) Present:- Mr.R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocat ocate with ocate Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocat ocate Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocat vocate Mr. Arjun Sangwan, Advoca for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** The defendant No.1 is in is in second appeal before this Court against inst the concurrent findings of of the learned Courts below whereby the the suit of the plaintiffs/responde ndents No.1 and 2 herein, for permanent in t injunction restraining the appe appellant/defendant No.1 from illegally and nd forcibly: a) causing any obst obstructions in functioning of Management ent Committee of Respondent; b) b) Interfering into the lawful and peaceful and nd exclusive possession of plaintif intiff in the property marked as ABCD shown wn as 'red' in colour in the site pl e plan attached with the plaint, measuring 14 14 Marlas bearing Khata No. 154 154/222, Khasra No. 18/16/4(0- 14), village G e Garhi, Tehsil Garhshankar (herei ereinafter ‘The Suit Property’); c)demolishing hing the existing constructions exis existing over the suit property, has been decr decreed. SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 2. The parties shall hereinaft Page 2 of 16 16 (cid:1) eir inafter be referred to as per their status before ore the learned trial Court i.e. the nt . the appellant as ‘the defendant no.1’ and the r fs’. the respondents as ‘the plaintiffs’. 3. The brief facts of the case re case as put forth in the plaint are that the plaint laintiff No.1 is a juristic person bein nt being the registered Management Committee ma e managing the affairs of plaintiff N he iff No.1. Surinder Pal Verma is the President and and Paramjit is the Vice President ide dent of the said Committee. Vide resolution dat dated 11.10.2009 passed by the he the Management Committee, the President and and Vice President were authorize of rized to file the suit on behalf of plaintiff No.1. o.1. It was the pleaded case of the p
Facts
are the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are in exclusive po e possession as owners/co-sharers las rers in land measuring 0-14 marlas and marked a ed as ABCD shown in read colour 14 our in the site plan measuring 14 marlas bearin aring Khata No.154/222, Khasra er sra Nos.18//16/4 (0-14) as per Jamabandi for i for the year 2006-07situated in th sil in the area of village Garhi, Tehsil Garhshankar kar/ the suit property. On the suit p ms uit property, there are two rooms kutia and sub submersible pump constructed a of ed and installed by followers of plaintiff No.1. o.1. Religious pooja place (dhoona) he ona) is also in existence since the time of Bapu K pu Kumbh Dass Ji. It was further ple o.1 r pleaded that the defendant No.1 is co-sharer in er in the land of joint Khata where are hereas defendants No.2 to 4 are strangers and and they have no right title or i ty. or interest in the suit property. Further averm erment was made in the plaint tha ek, that for the last about one week, the defendan dants in connivance with each he ch other were threatening the plaintiffs thro through members of the Comm bly mmittee that they will forcibly SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) interfere into nto the lawful, peaceful and exclusi Page 3 of 16 16 (cid:1) ffs. clusive possession of the plaintiffs. The defenda ndants threatened that they ing ey will demolish the existing constructions ons and submersible pump and the ly. the Dhoona illegally and forcibly. The said threa hreats of the defendants are wron nd rong, illegal and against law and facts; and the the plaintiffs will suffer irreparab he arable loss and injury in case the defendants su ts succeed. The defendants were ain ere asked many times to refrain from their act r activities, however, to no avail. W uit il. With these averments, the suit was filed. 4. Upon notice, the defenda eir endants appeared and filed their written statem atement contesting the suit denyin he nying the averments made in the plaint inter ali r alia stating that the plaintiffs have he have no cause of action to file the present suit; t it; the plaintiffs had not come to th at o the Court with clean hands; that under the ga garb of present suit, plaintiffs he iffs want to encroach upon the common prop property; plaintiffs had not joined t ty; ed the Gram Panchayat as party; and the plaint laintiffs should be directed to produ he roduce exact measurement of the site in dispute ute; the Dhoona shown by the plai he plaintiffs in their site plan and the construction c on clearly falls within the western he ern rasta which is depicted in the site plan of th f the defendants which has been p as en prepared at the spot strictly as per revenue r ue record with the measurement; a he nt; and in case the version of the plaintiffs is ad s admitted then the rasta would be ble be blocked; that the submersible pump also fa o falls within the northern kach he kacha rasta; and therefore, the defendants ha s have every right to block the illeg ho illegal move of the plaintiffs who cannot be allo allowed to encroach upon the publi ublic passage. SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) On the basis of pleading o Page 4 of 16 16 (cid:1) es ng of the parties, following issues 5. were framed: ed:- no.1 “1. Whether the plaintiff no.1 is co-owner ive in exclusive possession of the suit site as de ad s detailed and described in head note of the plaint and shown in th in the attached site plan? OPP 2. Whether the site plan filed by th by the plaintiff is correct? OPP 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled ent titled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether plaintiffs have not c an ot come to the court with clean hands and under the garb of the p to the present suit, they are trying to encroach upon the passage as dep in depicted in the Aks Shajra and in the other revenue record? OPD 5. Whether the Gram Panchaya is hayat of Village Garhi Matton is necessary and proper party and for and therefore, the suit is bad for misjoinder? OPD 6. Relief.” 6. Upon consideration of the the entire oral and documentary evidence brou brought on record by the parties, th s, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in fav favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant ants No.1 and 2 went in appeal before the le e learned Additional District Jud Judge, Hoshiarpur which was dismissed vide vide judgment and decree dated ted 06.08.2022. Hence, present second appeal peal by defendant No.1. 7. Learned counsel for for the appellant/defendant No.1submits t its that the suit of the respondents ents/plaintiffs has been decreed on the basis asis of report dated 01.01.2011 11 of the Local Commissioner appointed by C by Court. It is submitted that even a ven as per the said report (Ex.P1) it is shown th n that the illegal construction/Dho /Dhoona raised by the plaintiffs SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) falls in Khasra asra No.18//16/4 and “half share fa re falls in khasra No.18//16/6 in the passage age”. It is submitted that the therefore, in view of this Page 5 of 16 16 (cid:1) proven/admitt mitted fact it becomes clear, that th at the plaintiffs have encroached upon public la lic land i.e. the passage; and thus, s, the suit of the plaintiffs could not have been een decreed. 8. It is submitted that as p as per the report of the Local Commissioner oner himself the encroachment be t being done by the plaintiffs is proved. The said report could not have bee been discarded merely on the basis of an un n unreliable site plan produced by by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not filed any o ny objections to the said report an rt and in fact PW1 has admitted the correctnes tness of the report. The version of t of the plaintiffs in the plaint and the site plan plan is that the Dhoona exists o ts only in Khasra No.18//16/4. However, the the report is to the contrary and th d the correct fact has not been brought by th y the plaintiffs before the Courts. L
Legal Reasoning
lies upon judgments of this Court in rt in “Ravi Chopra Vs. Shri Jajpal Mahendru” La ” Law Finder Doc ID # 50486; “Kala Kala Singh & Others Vs. Mukesh Kumar” Law aw Finder Doc ID # 635390; “Ja “Jagga Ram Vs. Rattan Lal & Others” Law F aw Finder Doc ID # 1468149; “Tara Tara Chand & Others Vs. Siri Pal & Others” La ” Law Finder Doc ID # 1464727; 27; “Bachan Singh Vs. Swaran Singh” Law Fin w Finder Doc ID # 18843; “Siri Kisha ishan Vs. Dharampal & Others” Law Finder Do r Doc ID # 122401; “Nahar Singh & h & Others Vs. Kaka Singh” Law Finder Doc ID c ID # 18928; and judgment of of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Walter Louis ouis Franklin (dead) through LRs LRs Vs. George Singh (dead) through LRs” L Rs” Law Finder Doc ID # 35314. 12. 13. No other argument is raise aised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned co counsel for the parties and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 14. At the very outset it ma may be pointed out that the present appea ppeal is of the year 2022 and the s he same has been adjourned at f request of learned counsel for the app l appellant/defendant No.1 on 28.10.2022, 16 2, 16.12.2022, 18.04.2023, 02.08.20 8.2023, 16.11.2023, 09.02.2024, 12.07.2024, 02 4, 02.08.2024 and 28.11.2024. 15. Before proceeding to deal eal with the argument raised by the appellant/ lant/defendant no.1, it may be poin pointed out that the ownership and possessio ession of the plaintiff over the he suit property is irrefutably established on on record by way of overwhelm helming evidence. This fact has been admitted itted by the defendants themselves lves in their evidence before the SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) learned trial c ial court.Perusal of Jamabandi for 2 or 2006-07 shows that the Khata No. 154/22 is 2 is jointly owned by co-sharers in rs including Defendant no.1, yet Page 8 of 16 16 (cid:1) only Plaintiffs tiffs are shown to be in exclus clusive possession of disputed property. Furt Further, the Defendants admitted ted the construction of Plaintiff over the suit suit property; DW1 Sukhdev Singh ngh admits in cross-examination that the Dhoo hoona is present at the disputed pr d property; DW1 further admits that Bapu Kum Kumbh Dass is the owner of the dis disputed property; Also, admits that the muta utation sanctioned in favour of Pla f Plaintiff in Jamabandi for 2006- 07 pertaining ing to disputed property is correct rect; DW1 again admits in cross- examination t on that the Plaintiff purchased the the disputed property and that the Plaintiff is iff is a registered society. Even DW2 DW2 Dhani Ram admits that the disputed prop property was purchased by Bapu apu Kumbh Dass. Further PW4 Kashmiri Lal p al proved on record Ex. PW4/A the the Electricity Bill regarding the suit property i rty in the name of Surinder Pal Verm Verma, President of Society Baba Kumbh Dass. ss. No doubt, Defendant no.1 is a is a co-sharer in the joint Khata but that woul ould not vest any right in the De Defendants to interfere in the peaceful poss ossession of Plaintiff over the suit suit property. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court rightly tly decreed the suit on 14.10.2016 2016 on the basis of the above evidences re restraining the Defendants fro from illegally and forcefully interfering in f in functioning of Plaintiff Committe ittee, dispossessing the Plaintiff from suit prop property or demolishing constructio uction of Plaintiff, except in due law. course of law. SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 16. The main crux of the argum rguments advanced on behalf of Page 9 of 16 16 (cid:1) the defendant dant No.1 is that the plaintiffs had f ad filed the present suit seeking permanent in t injunction only with regard to t to the suit property existing in Khasra Nos.1 os.18//16/4 (0-14); however, as as per the report of Local Commissioner oner (Ex.P1) it has been informed med that the half share of the construction r on raised by plaintiffs/Dhoona falls falls in “Khasra No.18//16/6 in the passage” ge”. It has been contended that thu thus, the encroachment on part of the plaintiff intiffs is proven. 17. At first blush, the said aid argument of the appellant appears to be o be appealing however, upon a de a detailed perusal of the record the same is b is borne out to be incorrect. Firstly irstly, as per the report of Local Commissioner oner (Annexure P1) half portion o on of Dhoona is in Khasra no. 18//16/4 and and remaining half is in Khasra 18// 8//16/6 which is passage owned by Gram Panc Panchayat (and not by Defendant ant against whom injunction is sought). Furth urther, the Plaintiff has brought ght on record resolution dated 06.11.2008 (E 8 (Ex. PA) whereby two Karam wide wide land was given by Darshan Kaur to Plainti aintiff for the purpose of passage. 18. In regard to the above fac facts, I refer to the findings as recorded by th by the learned Lower Appellate Cou Court in paras 15 and 18 of the impugned judg judgment and decree dated 06.08.2 .08.2022 which reads as follows: “15. I have gone through the the record. PW-1 Surinder Pal Verma, President of Plaintiff No f No.1 society made statement proving averments of the pla plaint. His this version find corroboration from the oral test testimony of PW-2 Dhani Ram SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 10 of 16 16 (cid:1) and PW-3 Lakha Singh who are f are followers of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs further brought o ght on record copy of resolution dated 11.10.2009 Ex.P1 whereby ereby plaintiff No.1 Society has authorized its President Surind urinder Pal Verma and Vice President Paramjit to institute and e and prosecute this suit. Ex.P2 is site plan of the suit property as s as shown red in colour which is in possession of the plaintiffs. Ex. . Ex. P3 is copy of jamabandi for the year 2006-07 of land meas measuring 26 kanals 7 marlas showing that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 nd 2 and defendant No.1 are co- sharers in joint khata bearing aring No. 154/220. However, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are recorde corded in exclusive possession of Khasra No.18//16/4(0-14) i.e. the . the suit property. The plaintiff also brought on record copy of r of resolution dated 06.11.2008 Ex. PA whereby two karam wide ide land was given by Darshan Kaur to plaintiff for the purpose of se of passage. XXX 18. DW-1 Sukhdev Singh stated in ted in his cross examination that Bapu Kumbh Dass Ji is owner of r of the suit property; the total land is 26 kanals 7 marlas where herein plaintiffs are recorded as co-sharers; except plaintiff No. 1 o. 1 there is no other committee to run the institution out of abov above said khasra number, land measuring 14 marlas is in possess ssession of the plaintiff; towards eastern side of the Bohli there i ere is a submersible pump and electricity connection has been g en got installed by the plaintiff society. So, from this statemen ment of DW-1 Sukhdev Singh, defendant No. 1 also it is clear tha r that the plaintiffs are in settled exclusive possession over the suit e suit property being co-sharers. The plaintiffs also brought on r on record bill/ledger Ex.PW4/A regarding installation of electric ectricity connection in the suit property, which has been proved oved by DW-1. As the plaintiffs are in settled exclusive possessio ession of the suit properly being SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 11 of 16 16 (cid:1) co-sharers, they are entitled to ed to protect their possession against illegal and forcible ible dispossession. Although, defendant No. 1 is a co-sharer in t r in the joint khewat, but, he has no right to interfere in exclusive lusive settled possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, ill ty, illegally and forcibly except in due course of law. The remedy av dy available with them is to seek partition of the suit joint land. So far as report Ex. D1 of the Local Commissioner is concerned rned, the same is of no avail to the defendants because it is no is not the case of removal of encroachment. Through this suit suit the plaintiffs have sought simple relief of injunction ag against illegal and forcible dispossession except in due cou course of law. Therefore, the learned lower court has rightly htly held that the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed fo ed for. Thus. no ground is made out to interfere in the findings re gs returned by the learned lower court on the above said issues and s and the same are affirmed and upheld.” (Emphasis added) 19. From the above it is clear clear that as per the Resolution dated 06.11.20 1.2008 (Ex.PA) even the passage lan e land was gifted to the plaintiffs by Darshan Ka n Kaur. As such, strictly speaking, it g, it cannot be said that there is any ‘encroach oachment’ by the plaintiffs. Even ven otherwise, as has correctly been observed rved by the learned Additional Dist District Judge Hoshiarpur that as far as the repo report of the Local Commissioner is er is concerned, the same is not relevant as the s the present case is not of remova oval of encroachment rather an injunction is b is being sought against the illegal a gal and forcible dispossession of the defendant w”. dants “exceptin due course of law”. SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 20. Furthermore, I find merit in rit in the argument advanced on Page 12 of 16 16 (cid:1) behalf of the p the plaintiffs that even assuming, th , there is any ‘encroachment’ by them, even th n then the defendants have no locu locus to interfere in the peaceful possession of n of the plaintiffs over the suit pro property. The decree passed in favour of the p the plaintiffs only restrains the defe defendants from/ directs that:“It is therefore or re ordered that the suit of the plain plaintiff is hereby decreed to the effect that def t defendants are restrained themselv mselves or through anybody else from causing a ing any sort of obstructions in the fu he functions of the Management Committee of e of the plaintiff no.1 and from inte interfering into the lawful and peaceful and e nd exclusive possession of plaintiffs intiffs in the property marked as ABCD shown r wn red in colour in the site plan m n measuring 14 marlas bearing Khata no.154/ 154/222, Khasra nos. 18//16/4 (0- -14) as per jamabandi for the year 2006-07 s 07 situated in the area of Village Ga ge Garhi, Tehsil Garhshankar and from demolish olishing the existing constructions tions etc. illegally and forcibly except in due c due course of law and defendants be ts be restrained from doing so in future.” 21. Thus, the decree passed a d against the defendants and in favour of the the plaintiffs is for restraining the d he defendants from causing any sort of obstru struction in the functions of the the Management Committee of plaintiff No.1; o.1; and from interfering in the la e lawful, peaceful and exclusive possession an n and from demolishing the existing ting constructions. I find merit in the submissio issions made on behalf of the plaint laintiff that even if it is assumed for the sake o ke of argument that an encroachm chment exists upon and beyond SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) the suit prope operty, the defendants have no auth authority to take the law in their Page 13 of 16 16 (cid:1) hands and see seek to demolish the said allegedly edly illegal construction on their own. It is for for the concerned Municipal Co l Corporation to take action, if required, in a in accordance with law. It has bee been forcefully pointed out by learned coun counsel for the plaintiffs that hat the plaintiffs cannot be dispossessed, sed, or existing constructions be be demolished or obstructions caused in the the functioning of the plaintiffs “ “except in due course of law”. This is especia ecially so as admittedly, the defenda endant No.1 has no right, title or interest in the the suit property. What more, as as noted above the defendant No.1 in his his testimony as DW1 has himse imself admitted that the land measuring 14 14 marlas is in possession of plaint laintiffs; that the plaintiffs are in settled exclus clusive possession over suit prope roperty be co-sharers; and that therefore they they are entitled to protect their p eir possession against illegal and forcible dispo ispossession. Even the ledger in r in respect of the electricity connection ins n installed by the plaintiffs on the s he suit property (Ex.PW4/A) was duly proved b ed by DW1/appellant/defendant No t No.1. No doubt the defendant No.1 is a co- -sharer in the joint khewat but ut that would not give him the right to inter nterfere in the admitted exclusive usive settled possession of the plaintiffs of th f the suit property illegally and forc forcibly “except in due course of law”. 22. In holding as above, I find find support from a three-Judge Bench judgme gment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour Court rendered in case of “Rame SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 14 of 16 16 (cid:1) Gowda (D) by ) by Lrs. Vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu idu (D) by Lrs. & Another” Law Finder Doc ID c ID # 65812, wherein it has been he n held that:- “B. Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sec , Section 36 - Question of title - Trespasser - Injunction against tr nst true owner and in favour of trespasser in settled possession ion - It is not necessary for the person claiming injunction to pro prove his title to the suit land - He is required only to prove ve his lawful long possession without any concealment to the o the true owner and that his possession was invaded or thre threatened - Question of title remains and have to be kept op pt open to be adjudicated in a regular suit.” 23. Another three-Judge Benc Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “A. S A. Subramanian & Another Vs. R. . R. Pannerselvam” Law Finder Doc ID # 1805 805417, held as under:- “Permanent injunction - Even ven trespasser in established possession of property can obtain tain injunction. Permanent injunction - Suit for p for permanent injunction can be filed without seeking a prayer for fil r for declaration. Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sections tions 6 and 38 Decree of suit for Permanent injunction restraining ining defendant from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoym njoyment of plaintiff over suit property - Appeal by defendants dants - Plea of defendants that plaintiff claimed right to suit pro t property on basis of sale deed which is invalid as not executed b ted by proper power of attorney by heirs of 'D' - Held, even tresp trespasser, who is in established possession of property can obta obtain injunction - High Court rightly observed that plaint show shows that plaintiff not narrated anything about title dispute obvio obviously because of fact that in SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 15 of 16 16 (cid:1) previous litigation, defendant faile t failed to obtain any relief - High court rightly observed that princip rinciple that plaintiff cannot seek for bare permanent injunction w fo on without seeking a prayer for declaration improper and not ap t applicable - Therefore, decree of permanent injunction upheld. ld.” 24. This Court in “Smt. Gee Geeta and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar” Law F aw Finder Doc ID # 68017, has held eld that:- “Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Orde Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Indian Easements Act, 1882, Section 63 n 63 - Scope and applicability - Even trespasser having establish ablished possession of property cannot be dispossessed forcibly b ibly by true owner - True owner can recover possession only by du by due process of law even from unauthorised occupant - Entitle ntitled to issue of ad interim injunction restraining defendant dant from interfering with their possession - Held, ad interim inju injunction granted only to the effect plaintiffs not to be disposs spossessed from land in dispute except in due course of law.” 25. In face of the above note oted factual and legal position, the ld. Courts urts below correctly held that as t as the Plaintiffs are recorded in exclusive poss possession of suit property as per t per the revenue records, that is, Jamabandi fo i for the year 2006-07; and DW DW1 has admitted in cross- examination th on that Bapu Kumbh Dass is owner ner of suit property and the land measuring 14 14 Marlas is in possession of the Pl e Plaintiff; and that Plaintiffs are in settled excl exclusive possession of suit propert perty being co-sharers and they are entitled ed to protect their possession on against illegal and forcible dispossession sion; thus, the remedy available ble with Defendant is to seek partition of th of the joint suit land. The report o rt of Local Commissioner is not SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) relevant as th s the case is not of removal of enc encroachment rather injunction against illegal egal and forcible dispossession by n by Defendants. Ld. Appellate Page 16 of 16 16 (cid:1) Court dismisse issed the Appeal vide Judgment a nt and decree dated 06.08.2022 and conseque quently restrained the Appellant ant from illegally and forcefully interfering in f in functioning of Plaintiff Committe ittee, dispossessing the Plaintiff from suit prop property or demolishing constructio uction of Plaintiff, except in due law. course of law. 26. I find no ground is made ade out to interfere in the well- reasoned judg judgments and decrees of the ld. C ld. Courts below. In view of the above, presen sent appeal is dismissed. 27. Pending application(s) if an
Arguments
ts. Learned counsel submits that the pleas of t f the plaintiffs are inconsistent w t with the suit version, thereby falsifying their heir own pleas. 9. The plaintiff initially in in his pleading explained the position as t as to khasra No.18//16/4 being ing only comprising of room, submersible p le pump and dhuni. However, durin uring course of trial, at the time of rebuttal, th l, the plaintiff again examined him himself in rebuttal alleging that there was als also a rasta left out back in the the year 2008 in the aforesaid khasra numbe mber, which is neither originally ple y pleaded nor shown in the site plan as produ roduced. It does not lie in the m he mouth of plaintiff to assert SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) different actu actual and factual position in p in plaint and different actual Page 6 of 16 16 (cid:1) and factual po l position at the time of rebuttal, ttal, thereby making his version inconsistent. nt. It is accordingly prayed that th t the impugned judgments and decrees of the f the learned Courts below be set as t aside. 10. Per contra, learned counse unsel for the plaintiffs appearing on caveat veh vehemently opposes the submissi issions made on behalf of the appellant/defe defendant No.1 and submits that hat the defendant No.1 has no locus to illegal legally threaten the plaintiffs. In fact fact the defendant No.1 himself has admitted ted before the learned Courts belo below that the plaintiffs are the owners of the f the suit property; that constructio uction of the plaintiffs exists on the suit prope roperty; that the plaintiffs are in exc exclusive possession of the suit property; and and that the electric connection the thereupon is in the name of the plaintiffs. It is It is submitted that in view of thes these admissions the defendant No.1 is a stra stranger to the suit property and and having no right, title and interest thereu ereupon to illegally threaten the pla e plaintiffs. 11. It is submitted that even ven assuming that the plaintiffs are encroach achers or have raised illegal co l construction or have raised construction on beyond the suit property, rty, the plaintiffs cannot be dispossessed sed except “in due course of law f law”. It is argued that even assuming ther there is any encroachment by the the plaintiffs, then it is for the concerned Mu Municipal Corporation to take ac e action against the plaintiffs, if any. It is subm ubmitted that how can the defenda ndant No.1 take action or break the plaintiffs iffs’ structures on his own. In suppor pport of his contentions, learned SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 7 of 16 16 (cid:1) counsel relies
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 24.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)