Phool Singh And Anr. vs Girdhari Lal
2003 Latest Caselaw 1230 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 14.8.1984 of the learned Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No. 281/1982 upholding the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (respondent herein).

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are that :

" the respondent filed the abovementioned suit on the pleadings that he being the owner of plot No.13-H/1 has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same since 1948. The ownership of the plots in this village was given to the plaintiff/respondent and appellants as also the other villages as a result of some settlement reached between Jatavs and Jats of the said village in 1949 and since then, all the plot-holders have been enjoying undisturbed possession of the plots allotted to each one of them. It has been pleaded that a private passage from point A to A as shown in the plan, is a part of the plaintiff's plot and same is used by him. The defendants after closing the door of his house No.13-D towards the common street, - has now opened two doors on the wall B to B making their exist and illegal interruption in the private passage of the plaintiff. It has further been pleaded that a staircase has also been constructed by the defendants despite police report dated 9.9.78 and also opened third door opening on plaintiff's wall in the wall EF. A gate has also ben opened by them on the plaintiff's portion marked AF in the plan and also constructed projections of 1st and 2nd floor on his plot 15-x-78 was lodged. As the defendants/appellants did not pay any heed to the request of the respondent for not raising any construction and opening the doors, the suit in question was filed. Written statement was filed on behalf of the appellants before the ld. Trial court and the ld. trial court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, framed the following issues for deciding the matter in controversy between the parties:-

1. Whether the plaintiff has locus-standi to file the present suit? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of prel. Objection no.2 to 4? OPD.

3. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

4. Whether the plaint if vague and is liable to be rejected as per prel. objection no.6? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the perpetual injunction, as prayed? OPP.

7. Relief.

3. The trial court granted perpetual injunction restraining the defendant (appellant herein) from raising any construction over the plot in issue. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.8.1984 concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

4. I have gone through the judgments of the courts below as also the material on record. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the respondent had failed to prove his ownership in the disputed property and, therefore, he had no locus standi to file the suit. This contention of the counsel cannot be upheld for reasons that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that 200 sq. yards plot was allotted on a settlement arrived at between Jats and Jatavs in the year 1949 and since then the parties to the present case are in possession of their respective plots. The testimony of the respondent's witnesses has not, in any manner, been impeached by the appellant who has only examined himself in support of his version.

5. The two courts below, having evaluated the material on record, returned a concurrent finding. No substantial question of law has been made out by counsel for the appellant before me to warrant interference in Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. R.S.A. 85 of 1984 is dismissed with no order as to costs. The stay granted by this court is vacated.