SALIG RAM Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellantplaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2004, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Shimla, H.P., whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking the relief of prohibitory injunction and damages has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the record, are that the appellant-plaintiff (herein after referred to as the 'plaintiff'), filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his suit land comprised in Khata No.41, Khatauni No.52, Khasra No.638/33/1, measuring 4.10 biswas, situated at Mauja Chakrail, Pargana Majhola, Tehsil and District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') and also sought damages to the tune of Rs.40,000/- from the defendant. It is averred by the plaintiff that he had purchased 41/97th shares in the suit land from Prabhu Ram and Nazroo Devi vide sale deed dated 21.5.1994. It is further averred by the plaintiff that he occupied this land and had constructed a house, septic tank and two latrines over this land. It is further averred by the plaintiff that he has spent a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the construction of septic tank and two laterines. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has no right or interest, whatsoever, over the suit land, however, he has unlawfully and illegally destroyed the septic tank of the plaintiff on 5.3.2000 and also demolished latrine seats with a hammer, thereby causing wrongful loss to him to the tune of Rs.40,000/- in all. In the aforesaid background the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the learned trial Court.

(3.) Defendant, by way of filing written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, it is averred by the defendant that the plaintiff started raising construction over the land without getting it demarcated and in this process had covered more area of land under his construction than was purchased by him. It is further averred by the defendant that the plaintiff constructed septic tank and latrines on a portion of land, which is being used as common passage by the owners and vendees. It has further been averred by the defendant that the plaintiff constructed latrines and septic tank on this common passage, which is in the shape of stair-case and has blocked it. Defendant, while denying all other allegations regarding demolition of latrines and septic tank and of plaintiff suffering loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.