Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) APPELLANT -Harjit Singh (since deceased) had filed the instant suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent -Corporation from interfering in his ownership and possession in respect of the suit land (i.e. a piece of vacant land adjoining the property No. EJ -355) alleging the same to be integral part of the property of the appellant which was enclosed within the boundary of the house and further restraining the Corporation from demolishing the construction situated thereupon.
(2.) AS per the averments made, the suit property including the land underneath the residential property of the appellant, bearing Municipal No. EJ -355, was a vacant space and was owned by him having been purchased by Basant Singh, grandfather of the plaintiff -appellant from Hukam Chand son of Palli Ram vide registered sale deed dated 04.11.1913 and said Hukam Chand son of Palli Ram purchased it from Dina Nath son of Dhiral Ram, resident of Basti Sheikh Darvesh, Jalandhar vide sale deed dated 21.01.1913. It is the further case of the appellant that House having MC No. EJ -355 was constructed by the appellant after sanction of site plan by the respondent -Corporation wherein also the suit property has been shown a part of the property of the appellant. It is further averment that the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the vacant piece of land adjoining the house in dispute after the death of his father. The suit was contested by the respondent -Corporation admitting that plaintiff was owner of house No. EJ -355. However, it was further averred that vacant land in dispute was a public street and vests in the Municipal Corporation Jalandhar, and therefore, it had got every right to protect its property. It was further averred in the written statement that the vacant land is not a part and parcel of the house No. EJ -355 and is a public street and the plaintiff has unlawfully encroached upon the area to the extent of 4' x 31/2' and accordingly, notice under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act was served upon the plaintiff, whereby he was asked to remove the encroachment but to no avail.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP 3. Relief.;