- (1.) This Regular Second Appeal is maintained by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree, dated 27.12.2002, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2000 whereby the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sundernagar in Civil Suit No. 125 of 1995 has been affirmed.
(2.) Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a suit was maintained by the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the defendantsappellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for permanent prohibitory injunction praying that the appellants-defendants be restrained from destroying or defacing "Samadhis" situated on the suit land. A further decree of mandatory injunction was sought against the defendants to the effect that the defendants be directed not to interfere in the right of the plaintiffs to use the suit land as graveyard or to raise "Samadhis" on the suit land or in the worship of Samadhis situated there. As per the plaintiffs, the land comprised in Khewat No. 321, Khatauni No. 613, Khasra No. 33, measuring 913.27 Sq. meters situated in Mohal Purana Bazar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, was shown under the ownership of Devki Devi and the possession of the appellants as per the revenue entry for the year 1988-89 is wrong and illegal. In fact the suit land was dedicated by Suket Estate for Samadhis of dead Gosains and the Samadhis of plaintiffs' ancestors and their kith and kins are existing on the suit land. It was also alleged that the suit land was being used by the plaintiffs who actually belongs to Gosains sect for burial of the dead bodies and the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to record in the revenue papers the present appellants/defendants as non-occupancy tenants. It was further alleged that on 20.5.1995 when appellant No. 1 damaged one Samadhi of the plaintiffs' ancestors and also threatened to remove all the existing Samaghis from the suit land and also tried to trespass, an FIR was lodged with Police Station, Sundernagar and subsequently, the suit was preferred before the learned trial Court. The appellants, in written statement taken preliminary objections to the extent that the suit was not maintainable; secondly, the plaintiffs had no cause of action to file the present suit and the suit was not validly instituted for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it was contended that the revenue entries are correct qua the suit land and the land in dispute is being possessed by the appellants whose father late Shri Bardu was recorded as non-occupancy tenant in the revenue record and after his death, possession of the suit land stood reflected in the revenue entry including missal haquiat bandobast jaded.
(3.) The defendants denied that they had demolished the Samadhi and had caused illegal interference. It was asserted that the suit land is being possessed by them and as such, question of interference does not arise. Learned trial Court allowed suit of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit to the effect that defendants are restrained from interfering in the suit land or to cause damage to the Samadhis or temple.;