Ram Rakhi vs Sudam Singh and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Noticeably, parties have been litigating since the year 1988 and all litigations must come to an end at some stage. Plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2001, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una, in Civil Appeal No. 296/2000/96, titled as Sudam Singh and others versus Ram Rakhi, whereby judgment and decree dated 20.3.1996, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class(1), Amb., District Una, in Civil Suit No. 195 of 1988, titled as Ram Rakhi versus Sudam Singh and others, stands modified.

Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). Plaintiff was aggrieved of the fact that the defendants were raising construction over the suit land without any authority. Defendants contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had received Nazrana and annual Chakata with respect to the suit land and as such they have a right over the same. Also, they have been in possession and using the suit land since long.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed? OPP

Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of Chajja shown by letters EFGH in the site plan? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the suit is within time? OPP

4A. Whether act and conduct of plaintiff is a bar to the suit? OPD1

4B. Whether the ''Chhajja'' in dispute has been constructed by defendants prior to institution of the suit and is old, as alleged? OPD

4C. Whether defendant No. 1 is a tenant over the suit land? If so, its effect? OPD1

4D. Whether the defendants have easementary right over the suit land, as alleged? OPD

Relief.

Trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms:

In view of my discussion on the foregoing issues, suit is decreed for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to remove Chhajjas over-hanging the suit land shown in Ex. PW1/A by letters EFGH and in Ex.PW2/A as EF. Defendants are also restrained from opening doors and windows towards the suit land i.e. galli and to cause any type of obstruction for its enjoyment by the plaintiff. No order as to costs. Decree-sheet be drawn and the file consigned to records.

Aggrieved thereof, defendants preferred an appeal and the judgment and decree was modified by the lower appellate Court to the following extent:

For the foregoing findings it is held that the Gali ABCD is proved to be meant for common use by the parties to the suit though it is owned exclusively by plaintiff Ram Rakhi. The defendants are directed to remove the projections marked as EFGD and IH. With these findings the appeal is partly allowed. No order to costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.

Present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

Once the learned Courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the site in dispute, whether non-grant of relief of injunction has virtually vitiated the impugned judgment and decree?

Once the plea of the respondents/defendants of tenancy has failed, can such person be allowed to use such site?

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no question, much-less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal.

Lower appellate Court, in my considered view, rightly came to the conclusion that, to a limited extent, the construction was required to be demolished. Significantly, defendants are not aggrieved of the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. Defendants have been able to establish that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had inducted them as occupancy tenants and also paid Nazrana with regard to the same. Documents (Ex. DW-2/A and DX) are evidently clear to this effect.

As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the lower appellate Court are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Cross Objections No. 182 of 2002, also stand disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.