Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) This is the second appeal of the first defendant, (now represented by his LRs) in a suit filed by respondent no.1 herein (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiff'), seeking a recovery of Rs. 1,78,000/-. The suit having been decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the first appeal against that judgment and decree having been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, this second appeal has been filed.
(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff was that he is the owner in possession of a house situated in village Nandpur Kalaur as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint, which came to his share in a family settlement with his father and brothers. He stated that he had spent Rs. 1,78,000/- to construct the house and was residing there, with his family. The house was stated to have been evaluated by an "approved draftsman". On the northern side of the plaintiff's house, the property of the defendant is stated to be situated. It was alleged that the defendants, knowingly and intentionally, removed soil adjoining the house of the plaintiff, by digging a a pit (khai) in the month of October 1999. After digging the pit, the defendants were stated to have filled it with water and despite the request of the plaintiff, they did not fill up the pit, due to which the walls, roof and floor of the house of the plaintiff developed cracks and the walls got disjointed at the corner joints. As a result of the cracks, the walls are stated to have sunk, affecting the entire building. It was further alleged that due to this, the house had become completely dilapidated and unfit for human habitation. Thus, a recovery of Rs. 1,78,000/- was sought from the two defendants impleaded in the suit, i.e. Chetan Singh (now represented in this appeal through his legal representatives) and one Kaka Khan, who was arrayed as defendant no.2 in the suit. The suit was filed on 16.11.2000.
(3.) Upon notice issued to them, the defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit, stating that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and the house and that he had not spent Rs. 1,78,000/- to construct it. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not living in the house and that the value of Rs. 1,78,000/- had actually not been assessed by an assessed evaluator. It was also denied that any pit had been dug up and filled with water, with the averment with regard to the walls having developed cracked etc., also wholly being denied.;