BIHARI LAL Vs. BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff-Appellants, assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.06.1986, passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') dismissing the suit of the Plaintiffs as well as judgment and decree dated 04.05.1987, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court), whereby, the First Appeal was also dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff-Appellants and Defendant-Respondents Nos. 2 to 14 were the owners in possession of the plot measuring 30' x 27' situated at Ballabgarh Gate, Main Bazar, Old Faridabad. Earlier, Sohan Lal, father of the Plaintiffs and predecessor of Defendants Nos. 2 to 14 was the owner in possession of the said plot being his ancestral property. In the year 1931, one Shri Ghansham Dass, son of Shri Tota Ram, resident of Mohalla Barh, Old Faridabad, filed a suit for recovery of money against late Shri Sohan Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs and pro-forma Defendants Nos. 2 to 14. The suit was decreed as case No. 653 decided on 12.08.1931, with the title Ghansham Dass v. Sohan Lal. In the execution proceedings, the decree-holder, Ghanshyam Dass, got the suit property attached. But late Shri Sohan Lal, the judgment-debtor of those execution proceeding's, paid the decretal amount to the decree-holder with the result that Ghansham Dass did not get the suit property sold in execution of that decree. The suit property was ancestral with Shri Sohan Lal and continues to be so with the Plaintiffs and proforma-Defendants Nos. 2 to 14. However, after his death, the Plaintiffs and proforma Defendants became owners in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that Defendant No. 1 wanted to purchase the suit property but the Plaintiffs did not agree and, therefore, he was trying to take forcible possession by raising construction thereon. In this backdrop, suit for permanent injunction was filed by the Plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, restraining Defendant No. 1 from interfering in their possession over the plot in dispute.

(3.) The Defendant Nos. 2 to 14 admitted the claim of the Plaintiffs to the effect that the Plaintiffs were entitled to get the construction raised by the Defendant No. 1 removed, in case he succeeds in doing so, during the pendency of the suit.