Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) DEFENDANTS are in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff -respondent, was decreed.
(2.) BRIEFLY put, the facts of the case as noticed by the learned first appellant court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that house No. 286, Block No. XIII situated in Mohalla Kasaban, Hissar, and the land shown by letters ABCD shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint was owned and possessed by the respondents. In the year 1970, Ladha Ram, owner of house no. 287, Block No. XIII, Mohalla Kasaban, Hissar, had opened the door forcibly shown by letters CD which compelled the father of the respondents to file a suit for perpetual injunction against him. That suit was decreed by the court of Sub -Judge, Hissar, on May 3, 1972. Appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Hissar on July 15, 1982, the title of Lachman Dass, father of the respondents qua the land marked by letters ABCD annexed with the plaint was upheld. The appellants taking advantage of the absence of the respondents, forcibly opened the door E in the wall DB shown in the site plan on June 11, 1982. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. The appellants also assured the respondents to close the door E mentioned above but failed to stand on their commitment. Forced by these circumstances, the respondents instituted the present suit for perpetual injunction claiming a relief of prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the appellants restraining them from interfering in their ownership, possession and user of the site shown by letters ABCD and from using the same as a passage by opening any door or meddling with their privacy and ownership by opening any ventilator, window, door etc. A mandate was sought against the appellants for closing the door shown by letters E in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The appellants in their written statement, traversed the averments of the respondents. According to them, the land in dispute was not the exclusive property of the respondents and was, in fact, jointly owned and possessed by all persons who are the owners of the Houses No. 284, 285, 286 and 287 which abut on this land. It was also pleaded that they were not party to the litigation and as such, judgments rendered in the earlier suit were not binding upon them. The other pleas that the suit was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties; that it was barred by time that it was not maintainable in the present form and that the respondents have no locus standi to file the suit were also raised.
(3.) ON competition of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues: "(1) Whether the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession as owners of the property shown as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint? OPP (2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative then whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (4) Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD (5) Whether the plaint is not verified according to law, if so, to what effect? OPD (6) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD (7) Relief.";