RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFFS are in appeal against the judgment of reversal in the suit for permanent injunction.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiffs sought a decree for permanent injunction qua a residential plot and a house constructed thereon bearing khewat No. 71, khatoni No. 125 and khasra No. 134 total measuring 1 kanal and 12 marlas, as per the jamabandi for the year 1998 -99. It was further pleaded case of the plaintiffs that after raising construction of their two pucca houses consisting of 22 rooms, they were residing therein and some portion was being used for tethering the cattle. It was also prayed that if the defendants succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiffs during pendency of suit, the possession be got delivered to the plaintiffs. Having been served in the suit, defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. It was alleged that land of the defendants was abutting with the land of the plaintiffs, as indicated in the site plan with 'Mark ABCD' bounded and measuring North 72 feet -house of Manphool Singh, South 72 feet -house of Bhura Ram, East 56 feet 6 inches - rasta sare -aam, West -46 feet 6 inches -house of Chiranga consisting of three rooms, i.e. verandah, kitchen, stair case, bathroom etc. from the time of consolidation in the year 1962. They were in possession for the last about 35/40 years and had been using the same without any interference. Their plot and house constructed thereon was separate and independent from the plot and house of the plaintiffs. If any area of both the plots was overlapping in the revenue record, that entry would be factually incorrect and of no consequence. On completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues: - "1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit land and is entitled to the possession on the same? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus -stand to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his act and conduct? OPD 5. Relief"
(3.) WITH a view to substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court came to conclusion that plaintiffs were entitled for the decree sought by them. Accordingly, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2010. Defendants filed first appeal and the same was partly allowed, observing that possession of the plaintiffs was established just on the half share. Thus, feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.7.2013, plaintiffs have filed instant regular second appeal.;