![]() ![]() The construction of the plaintif o f is sta uted to be on the land they got in the family partition. Their cow sheds are also in existence there. In Southern side, there exists house of pl r aintiff Lachhman, Gauri Shankar and Bir Chand. ![]() The f co mpensation thereto was given to him alone because plaintiffs have admitted that wooden structure and cow shed having be t en co onstructed by him. d constructed by him over the suit land which is in his possessio H n, which has been subsequently acquired by H.P. There was one wooden structure and cow she. His cow shed and kitchen is also in PĮxistence over this land. He is in settled possession of the same because over a portion thereof, his single storeyed slate roofed house measuring. The defendant has been allotted two bighas of land out of it, which is on the Northern side. The same is not joint and rather has been separatedīy the parties in family settlement having taken place in the year 1989. P.W.D, thereby reducing the area of the suit land and to 3-4-0 bighas. It is contended that the entire land comprised in Khasra No.942 was 3-3-13 bighas and out of it land measuring 0-8-16 bighas denoted by Khasra No.942/1 was acquired by H.P. The defendant filed written statement and averred that the H revenue entries qua the suit land are not disputed. He was requested not to lay foundation over the suit land, but g of no avail and he has flatly refused to admit the claim of the p i laintiffs. ![]() He started digging the foundation for raising the co C nstruction of a building over the suit land on h. The plaintiffs requested him not to raise o any type of construction without getting it lawfully partitioned, but of no avail. The defendant, howev t er w ith oout getting the same partitioned started collecting the construction material over the suit land for raising construction of reside u ntial b ruilding thereon. The suit land which is abutting Na f tion al Highway- 21, is valuable one and is in joint ownership and possession of the parties to the suit. f Phati and Kothi, Bajaura, Tehsil and District Kullu, including H the suit land is partitioned. The entire land measuring 38-15 bighas entered in P situated in Phati and Kothi Bajaura, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') alongwith. Land measuring 3-13-0 bighas entered in Khata No.942, Khatauni No.125 min/473 min. Referred to as 'the defendant') claiming that they are joint owner of the Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for injunction against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter The present o Regular Second Appeal is maintained by the appellants again st the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, Dist C rict Kullu, in Civil Appeal No.27 of 2006, dated h, whereby the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, had s i et g aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, District Kullu, in Civil Suit No.143 of 2005, dated Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.įor the appellants : Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, f Judge. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |