L.N.MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS is second appeal by plaintiff Kavita, who was successful in the trial court, but has been non - suited by the lower appellate court.
(2.) APPELLANT -plaintiff filed suit against defendant -respondent Harmesh Singh (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) alleging that out of plot measuring about 08 marlas, the plaintiff purchased 04 marlas from Rajinder Kumar Sood, vide agreement dated 04.02.1986 and purchased the remaining 04 marlas from Shanti Narain vide sale deed dated 18.01.1988 and thus became owner in possession of the entire plot. Out of it, the plaintiff sold western half part measuring 04 marlas to defendant, vide sale deed dated 21.02.1994. Thus, defendant is owner in possession of western half part, whereas plaintiff is owner in possession of eastern half part, which is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff alleged that just before filing of the suit, defendant constructed a small bathroom and a room in the plaintiffs plot and threatened to interfere in her possession thereon. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from talcing forcible possession of the suit plot measuring about 04 marlas from the plaintiff and also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the construction recently made by him in the suit plot in the shape of a small bathroom and a room. The defendant alleged that he is owner in possession of the entire plot measuring 71/2 marlas. The defendant denied knowledge of Shanti Narain and Rajinder Kumar being owners thereof. The defendant alleged that he is in continuous peaceful possession of the entire plot since the year 1989 and has raised construction therein legally. He is legal owner in possession thereof through valid means. Plaint averments were broadly controverted. Some other pleas were also raised.
(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala, vide judgment and decree dated 19.05.2008, decreed the plaintiffs suit. However, first appeal preferred by the defendant has been allowed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2009 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this second appeal.;