Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - (1.) Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated 14.8.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi camp at Sarkaghat, in Civil Appeal No.106/2010, whereby the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2014, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Sarkaghat, in Civil Suit No.47/2001, has been affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
(2.) Plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court. He claims to be owner in possession of the land entered in Khata No.24, Khatauni Nos. 42 to 46, bearing Khasra Nos. 319, 326, 334, 353, 354, 355, 356, 362, 367, 369, 375, 378, 389, 392, 409, 412, 423, 432, 436, 466, 471, 493, 495 and 498, measuring 0-80-47 hectares, situate in Muhal Chhimbara-Balh, Illaqua Bhadrota, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. The suit land, according to him, fell in his share consequent upon the partition of joint land effected between him and the respondents-defendants. The defendants, however, without any right, title or interest in the suit land have started causing interference by removing and chopping the branches of the trees standing thereon. He requested them to desist from such unlawful activities, but of no avail, hence the suit.
(3.) The defendants in the written statement have contested and resisted the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that neither there exists any enforceable cause of action in favour of the plaintiff nor the suit is maintainable and the same rather is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, no doubt it is admitted that the partition has taken place qua the joint land of the parties to the suit, however, after delivery of possession, the partition proceedings were stayed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the matter is now pending before the said authority for disposal. It is denied that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants from the suit land and that the possession thereof was delivered to him at the time of alleged partition. It is pointed out that Gayatri Devi and Sunki Devi, the daughters of Haria, common ancestor of parties on both sides, have also filed revision petition against the order of partition of the suit land on the grounds that the partition proceedings had taken place behind their back, as they were not made parties therein.;