CHAJJU RAM Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts below viz. Sub Judge First Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. By these judgments whereas the suit for grant of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the respondents as plaintiffs against the appellants being the defendants was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.4.2001 which has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.2001, the counter claim for specific performance of contract setup by the defendants was dismissed and the findings to this effect have been affirmed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the parties can be stated as follows.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs they are absolute owners in possession of the suit land comprised in khata No. 9, khasra No. 44/3, measuring 3 bigha 12 biswa situate at village Bangran, Tehsil Poanta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94. It was allotted to them in partition proceedings by orders of the Assistant Collector I Grade (in short AC I Grade), Poanta Sahib. Mutation No. 476 was attested on 9.10.1997. Possession of the suit land was delivered to them on 4.5.1998 pursuant to a warrant of possession issued by the Revenue Department. Delivery of possession was entered vide daily diary report (DDR in short) No. 499 of even date. The factum of partition stood incorporated in jamabandi for the year 1993-94 and that of delivery of possession in khasra gardawari for the year 1998. After delivery of possession, the plaintiffs cultiyated the suit land and had sown maize crop therein. When it was ready for harvesting, the defendants by use of sheer force cut and removed the maize crop from the suit land in the last week of October, 1998. The matter was reported to the police at Police Station Poanta Sahib but without any result. Later on while the plaintiffs were sowing wheat crop in the suit land on 28.11.1998, the defendants came there armed with deadly weapons and tried to prevent the plaintiffs from cultivating the suit land and sowing the wheat crop. The plaintiffs who are weak and poor were not in a position to resist the attack led by the defendants and hence they were constrained to file the suit.