PARAMJEET SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff -Gian Chand restraining defendant -Municipal Committee from demolishing any part of the house in dispute which has been decreed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.1987. Feeling aggrieved, defendant preferred an appeal which has been dismissed with some modification by lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.1987.
(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that plaintiff filed the suit with the allegations that he is owner of the house which is situated within the limits of Municipal Committee Tanda Urmur, shown in red colour in site plan and fully described in the head note of the plaint. Plaintiff constructed the house in the year 1973 after getting sanction from defendant. Defendant served a notice upon plaintiff requiring him to demolish some portion of the house in dispute on the allegations that plaintiff had made encroachment upon its property. However, plaintiff has not made any encroachment on the property of defendant. Defendant resisted the suit and alleged that plaintiff had included the property of defendant in his house without any right, title or interest. In case any site plan was proved to have been sanctioned by any employee of defendant, the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation because defendant could not have allowed plaintiff to raise construction on the property of Municipal Committee. Other allegations in the plaint were denied. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the site plan filed by the plaintiff is correct?OPD 3. Whether the site plan, if any, mentioned for the construction to be raised by the plaintiff if proved is the result of misrepresentation as alleged?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has encroached upon the property of the Municipal Committee?OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD 7. Relief."
(3.) AFTER appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by lower Appellate Court with some modification that defendant -Municipal Committee would be at liberty to take recourse to any other law for removal of encroachment, if any. Hence, this regular second appeal.;