VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THE present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide which the judgment and decree dated 16.2.1983 passed by the learned trial Court has been reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for prohibitory injunction was ordered to be decreed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from raising any construction over the plot in dispute by claiming it to be his ownership being an ancestral property. The plaintiff set up his claim that he was owner of one plot situated in the area of village Koyalpur and the same was shown as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint and the details were given in para 1 of the plaint. It was further claimed that the defendants wanted to take forcible possession of the plot in dispute by raising construction over the same.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants, who filed the written statement in which they claimed that they were owners of the plot in dispute from the time of their fore-fathers and further that the Mori of their house opened in the plot in dispute. It was also claimed that Parnalas of their house fell in the plot in dispute. It was also claimed that they along with Chellu and Phuse are the owners of plot in dispute and they used to tether their cattle over the plot in dispute. It was further claimed that the Mori and Parnalas existed there for the last more than 21 years. It was also claimed that the plaintiff has no right to the plot in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the plot mentioned in para 1 of the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct ? OPD" ;