NARENDER SINGH Vs. RAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants including appellants from interfering, grabbing, encroaching upon the suit property, detailed in para 1 of the plaint with prayer that if during pendency of suit, defendants succeed in encroaching upon any portion of suit land, a decree of mandatory injunction may be passed, was decided by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 30/8/2014, to the following effect:-

(2.) The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court resulted in filing of two appeals CA No. 89 of 2014 titled Ran Singh and another v. Mithan Singh and others and CA No. 124 of 2014 Narinder Singh and another (appellants herein) v. Ran Singh and another. Both the appeals were decided vide common judgment and decree dtd. 29/7/2017 by the Additional District Judge, Rewari. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was modified with directions to the defendants to restore the wall to its original position within three months at their own expenses whereas the other appeal filed by defendants No. 4 and 5 (appellants herein) was dismissed.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants would argue that suit land was owned by predecessor in interest of respondents/plaintiffs and the same was orally gifted in favour of Jawahar Lal, Shiv Lal and Fakir Chand and their names are recorded in the column of cultivation in the revenue records. It is further submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration seeking correction of entries in the revenue records but in the said case the appellants were not impleaded as a party and the suit was decreed ex parte. It is further-submitted that findings recorded by the Courts either in respect of possession of suit land by the respondents/plaintiffs or directions issued by the trial Court for removing the construction raised over the suit property and handing over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs or restoration of wall by the Court in appeal suffer from an error and is the result of mis-reading of evidence, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain. It is vehemently argued that as a matter of fact, the appellants are in possession of suit property but their plea in this regard has wrongly been rejected by the Courts.