- (1.) THE plaintiff -appellant Subhash filed the instant suit seeking following relief: - "Suit for injunction prohibitory and mandatory to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of agri. land measuring 34K -8M bearing khasra No.5031 which has been shown in red colour in the site plan aksh sijra at the time of his fore -fathers situated in Hissar, Distt. Hisar. Plaintiff has constructed a wall Mark AB in southern side and kotha and tubewell in the disputed land and he has sown jawar. Defendant has no right or concern with the aforesaid land. Defendant be restrained from demolishing the southern wall, construction and dispossessed forcibly and illegally and interference from the land. On the basis of evidence oral as well as documentary of all types."
(2.) THE facts as per the averments made by plaintiffappellant are that he is in possession of suit land as owner Hasab Rasad Kabja and is in cultivating possession of the appellant since the time of his forefathers. It is the case of the plaintiff -appellant that he constructed a wall towards the Southern side of the suit land and had also constructed a kotha at the spot in the suit land and also installed a tubewell in the suit land for irrigation purposes. The defendant -respondent had no concern with the suit land. On the Northern side of the suit land, Khasra Nos.5046 and 5049 existed. According to the plaintiff, one Chaudhary Shishpal Singh, Advocate was owner of Khasra No.5047 and the same was sold out later on. There were number of owners of Khasra No.5046 which was also sold out to the vendees and thereupon, a colony under the name and style of Ishwar Cooperative Society came into existence on Khasra No.5046. It was apprehended by the plaintiffappellant that the defendant -respondent was an unscrupulous person and was having an intention to break the Southern wall of the suit land forcibly, for which, he had no right under the law. Thus, apprehending interference into the suit land, plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking permanent injunction.
(3.) UPON notice, defendant -respondent appeared and filed his written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was specifically averred that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff - appellant with an ulterior motive to grab the land bearing khasra No.5046 and to harass him. It was further stated that the plaintiff had concealed material facts from the Court with regard to the earlier litigation in respect of the suit land, which culminated into a decree dated 27.9.2002 passed by Shri Satish Ahlawat, the then ADJ, Hissar, wherein it was held that the plaintiff -appellant has no right, title or interest in respect of the suit land, which is the subject matter of the present suit. According to the defendant, it was also held that the suit has been filed in order to usurp the suit land belonging to the Gram Panchayat by taking advantage of the entries in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue authorities and none of the parties are in possession of the suit land because it was a Johar at the spot and the major portion of the suit land has been recorded as uncultivable (vacant). On merits, the defendant denied the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and on the basis of aforesaid submissions, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Plaintiff filed replication to controvert the pleadings of the defendant. However, the fact of the other litigation relating to the case of "Anoop Singh v. Hari Singh etc." was admitted, further stating that Regular Second Appeal was pending before this Court. Plaintiff further admitted that Khasra No.5031 is adjacent to the land of the defendant and that defendant had sold out that entire adjoining land.;