- (1.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they along with proforma defendants No.5 to 10 are the owners of 1 kanal 15 marla of land comprised in Killa No.88/12/3 & 12/4. The houses of defendants No.1 to 4 are on the Eastern side of the houses of defendants No.5 to 10. Defendants No.1 to 4 encroached upon some part of their plots bearing Khasra No.88/12/3 & 12/4 owned by the plaintiffs after they constructed their house when they got their plot demarcated by the Local Commissioner appointed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rohtak and as per its report dated 10.6.2001 and 20.6.2001, the plaintiffs came to know that defendants No.1 to 4 had illegally and forcibly occupied 6' wide area on Northern side and 4' wide area on the Southern side in the aforesaid plots which has been shown by the plaintiffs in red colour marked by letters ABCD in the site plan. Thus, the total area so encroached by defendants No.1 to 4 is 80 sq. yards which has not been vacated despite requests and hence, the suit.
(2.) DEFENDANTS No.1 to 3 contested suit jointly and filed their written statement in which they alleged that they are the owners of plots No.12/2 and 12/5 and plot No.12/6 belongs to one Hari Singh. It is alleged that houses of defendants No.1 to 3 were constructed earlier and were old construction. They had given 341/2' land on the Northern side out of the plot No.12/2 to Hari Singh and took 23' land in lieu thereof in Southern side from the plot No.12/6 belonging to Hari Singh. It was denied that they had encroached upon land of the plaintiffs and alleged that demarcation report is not correct. They also alleged that they have constructed their house in their land.
(3.) DEFENDANT No.4 filed separate written statement. He admitted the ownership of plaintiffs and defendants No.5 to 10 over the plots bearing No.88/12/3 and 12/4 but denied to have encroached upon any land of the plaintiffs and defendants No.5 to 10. Rather it was alleged that encroachment might have been at the instance of defendants No.1 to 3. Defendants No.5, 6 and 9 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in their written statement whereas the remaining defendants did not contest the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - "1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.5 to 10 are owners of plots/killa no.88/12/3 and 12/4? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession by way of demolishing of the construction over the land marked by letters ABCD and shown in red colour in the site plan? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis -joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Relief." Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs examined Ram Kishan Malik as PW1, Om Parkash as PW2 by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A, Priyavart as PW3 by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A and the plaintiffs after tendering the documents into evidence namely, report of Local Commission dated 10.6.2001 (Ex.P1), Attendance Memo (Ex.P2), site plan (Ex.P3), Jamabandi for the year 1998 -99 (Ex.P3/1), jamabandi for the year 1998 -99 (Ex.P4), Jamabandi for the year 2003 -04 (Ex.P5) and Jamabandi for the year 2003 -04 (Ex.P6), closed their evidence.;