LAWS(P&H)-2017-11-30

YADWINDER SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE PEERAN BAGH

Decided On November 17, 2017
YADWINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
Gram Panchayat Village Peeran Bagh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff; decreeing his suit for permanent injunction is reversed by the lower Appellate Court and the suit filed by the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) For convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant; as they were described in the original suit.

(3.) The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat saying that he is in possession of the land measuring 1 Kanal 11 Marla, out of the total land measuring 4 Kanals comprised in Khasra No. 29, with the measurements as given in the plaint. This was claimed by the plaintiff that predecessor in interest of the plaintiff, namely, Hazara Singh was a proprietor in the village. He had become proprietor in the village by virtue of various sale deeds regarding the property within the revenue estate of the village. It was further pleaded that the suit land is recorded as Panchayat deh in the column of ownership and is recorded as Makbuja Malkana in the column of cultivation. Since the plaintiff is proprietor in the village, therefore, as per the entry in the jamabandi he is in possession of the suit land. Still further it was pleaded by the plaintiff that the Gram Panchayat itself had got the demarcation of the suit land conducted just before filing of the suit by the plaintiff. In that demarcation report also the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the suit land. Therefore, it was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit that he is in possession. Hence, the suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Gram Panchayat from interfering in possession of the plaintiff; except in due course of law. The plaintiff, further claimed in the suit that he was being dispossessed from the suit property because one Joga Singh has personal grudge against him. He manipulated the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the Gram Panchayat was bent upon disturbing the possession of the plaintiff by auctioning the land to Joga Singh.