RAJESH Tandon, J. - (1.) Heard Sri G. C. Kandpal, Sri P. S. Danu and Sri K. N. Joshi, Counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Purohit, Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) BY the present first appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13. 9. 1990 passed by the District Judge Chamoli in a suit for demolition and removing the constructions and handing over possession to the plaintiff within a month failing which the same be demolished by the plaintiff at the expenses of defendant through police and also passed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising constructions over the disputed land in future and also that of the public land. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent being Suit No. 77 of 1989, Govind Prasad Deoradi v. Pritam Singh, praying to the following effect: ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is the lease holder of Half Nali of land of Khasra No. 2119 situate at Village Tharali, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli. He got his land parallel by making a retaining wall and on this he spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. The defendant with the intention to destroy the lease-land of the plaintiff, got four Wooden Rooms (Khokhe) constructed on the way to lease-land of the plaintiff, by which the lease-land of the plaintiff got blocked. On 4th December, 1989, got an information from his brother that the defendant is making a concrete construction by removing the Khokha shown as Khokha No. 4 in the Map and in this construction, he is using the material of the retaining wall of the plaintiff. The plaintiff when inspected the spot, he found foundation and pillars.
(3.) THE defendant has contested his case by filing a written statement. He has denied the possession of the plaintiff on the land in dispute. Further he has stated that the plaintiff has been allotted eight Mutthi Land in Khasra No. 2119 as will appear from Para No. 1 of the plaint. He has stated in paragraph 19 of the additional pleas that he is unaware of any lease granted in favour of the plaintiff. Both the parties have been cross examined. The plaintiff-Govind Devrani has been examined as P. W. 1, where he has stated that the defendant-appellant has illegally encroached the way to the leased land of the plaintiff by constructing four Khokhas over it. P. W. 2 i. e. Yashpal Singh, who is posted as Senior Assistant in Public Works Department has proved the signatures made by Sri Laxmi Dutt Gairola-Execvitive Engineer over Exhibit-5 Paper No. 39ga/2. P. W. 3 i. e. Tulsi Ram has stated that he knows Mr. Govind Prasad and Pritam Singh. They had made the retaining wall. The construction work of the wall had been done in the year, 1977-78. He has made signatures on Exhibit-6. They had accepted Rs. 2,000/ -. The length and height of the wall were 40' to 45' and 12' respectively.;