Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) - The present appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby the suit filed by plaintiffs - Vinod and others (respondents herein) for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction has been allowed.
(2.) Vinod Kumar and others-plaintiffs filed the suit on allegations that there are seven houses in the street in dispute, allotted by the Custodian Department to displaced persons in the early fifties. There is single entrance of the said street which starts from the house of defendants No. 1 and 2. From the very beginning, there exists a common chowk towards western side of street in question i.e. in front of house of defendants No. 1 and 2. The said chowk has been used by the plaintiffs and inhabitants of the locality for all functions and by the children for playing etc. House No. 10, presently owned by defendants No. 1 and 2, was initially allotted to one Sardar Tirlochan Singh in the year 1956 and area of the house was 86 square yards. Tirlochan Singh sold the house to Mr. Vaishno Dass on 18.07.1980 vide registered sale deed. On 03.09.1980, Mr. Vaishno Dass got the building plan sanctioned from Municipal Council, Hisar - defendant No. 3, mentioning area of House No. 10 as 86 square yards. Vaishno Dass rented out the house to defendant No. 2 and on 10.01.1997, sold it to defendants No. 1 and 2 vide registered sale deed No. 3960. In the said sale deed, defendants No. 1 and 2 in collusion with their vendor Vaishno Dass mentioned area of the house in question as 106 square yards in place of 86 square yards. Thereafter, defendants No. 1 and 2 applied for sanction of building plan to defendant No. 3 and got the plan sanctioned in regard to 106 square yards. After getting the plan sanctioned, defendants No. 1 and 2 started raising construction over excess area by including the area of public street and common chowk, upon which residents of the locality raised their voice and the matter was put up before the then Chief Minister in grievance Committee. Defendant No. 3 instead of removing the illegal encroachment over the public street and common chowk, issued notices No. 279 and 290 dated 13.07.1998 to defendants No. 1 and 2, upon which defendants No. 1 and 2 in collusion with defendant No. 3 filed civil suit No. 292-C dated 23.10.1998 on false ground in order to legalize their illegal act. In the said suit, the plaintiffs and other residents of locality filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC') for impleading them as parties, but the application was dismissed with the observations that the applicants can file a separate suit against defendants No. 1 & 2.
(3.) The defendants filed the written statement, denied material averments set up in the plaint and entitlement of the plaintiffs to the relief claimed.;