KULDIP SINGH,JUDGE - (1.)THE appellant having lost in both the courts has filed second appeal against the judgement, decree dated 31.8.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2005, affirming judgement, decree dated 6.12.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 1, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 311 of 1993.
(2.)THE facts in brief are that appellant had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, in the alternative for possession regarding land comprising in khasra No. 168 measuring 10 marlas, Tikka Dadu, Tappa Mewa (for short, suit land) on the plea that he is owner in possession of the suit land, the respondent is stranger to the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes suit land and has no right, title or interest over the suit land . On 20.11.1993 in the demarcation given by kanungo the house of respondent was found over adjoining khasra No. 167. The respondent had collected material for covering best portion of the suit land. He was requested not to interfere over the suit land, but in vain, therefore, the suit was filed.
The suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement. He took several preliminary objections, such as, locus -standi, cause of action, estoppel, valuation and maintainability. On merits, the respondent denied the ownership and possession of the appellant. He took the plea that suit land is owned and possessed by him since 3.10.1984 over which he has constructed a house. The appellant is out of possession. The respondent is in possession of the suit land in view of agreement dated 3.10.1984. The house of the respondent is over the suit land and remaining portion of the suit land is used by the respondent as courtyard, which has been fenced since 3.10.1984.

(3.)THE appellant has concealed material facts. The appellant had agreed to sell the suit land alongwith house for a consideration of Rs.9,000/ - on 3.10.1984 and received Rs.7,000/ - at the time of execution of the agreement. The remaining Rs.2,000/ - were to be paid to appellant at the time of execution of the sale deed. The appellant did not execute the sale deed. The respondent is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The appellant had handed over the possession of the house and the land on 3.10.1984 as per agreement and since then the respondent is in possession of the suit land.