Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1194 (HP)

Tej Singh v. Sur Chand

2018-07-02

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, for, restraining the defendants from interfering causing nuisance, damage or taking forcible and illegal possession of the suit land comprised in khatta khatoni No. 24 min/32 min, khasra No. 362 measuring 01-17-00 bighas situated at Mauza Chalei, Hadbust No. 282, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, H.P. Paragraphs 1 to 7 of the plaint are reproduced hereinafter:- “1. That the plaintiff is recorded joint owner in possession of the suit land comprised in khatta khatoni No. 24 min/32 min, khasra No. 362 measuring 01-17-00 bighas situated at Mauza Chalei, Hadbust No. 282, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, H.P. as is evident from the copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-08 attached herewith. 2. That the defendants are completely stranger to the suit land having no right, title or interest in it whatsoever. 3. That the defendant since the month of March, 2015 have started causing interference, nuisance and damager over the suit land. They are entering into the suit land forcibly and causing damage thereon. The defendants are also threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and illegally. 4. That the plaintiff has cultivated Barley crop over the suit land. On 15.4.2015 the defendants alongwith their cattle entered into the suit land and destroyed the barley crop grown thereon by the plaintiff by letting loose their cattle. 5. That the plaintiff requested defendants time and again not to indulge in such illegal acts and desist from causing interference, nuisance and damage over the suit land or take its possession forcibly without any right, title or interest but they are reluctant and are threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences and to continue their interference in future also. 6. That in case the defendants are not restrained from doing so, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury which would not be compensated in terms of money. 7. That the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of suit land and if during the pendency of suit, the defendants succeeds in taking forcible and illegal possession of suit land or any part thereof, then the possession thereof may also be restored to plaintiff.” 2. The written statement furnished thereto by the defendants, is, also reproduced hereinafter:- “Preliminary objections: 1. The suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form. 2. The written statement furnished thereto by the defendants, is, also reproduced hereinafter:- “Preliminary objections: 1. The suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form. 2. The plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit. 3. That the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct. 4. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit on distorted and twisted facts which are far off from reality, hence he is not entitled to any relief. Objections on merit:- 1. That the para No.1 of the plaint is denied for want of knowledge. 2. That the para No.2 of the plaint is admitted to be correct. 3. That the para No.3 of the plaint is incorrect hence denied. It is denied that the answering defendants are causing interference, nuisance and damage over the suit land since the month of March 2015 and threatening to dispossess the plaint therefrom. 4. That the para No.4 of the plaint is incorrect hence denied. It is denied vehemently that the answering defendants entered into the suit land on 15.4.2015 alongwith their cattle and destroyed the barely crop and pruned the leaves of “Ban trees” grown thereon. 5. That the para No.5 of the plaint is incorrect hence denied. Since the answering defendants are not causing any interference into the suit land so no question of making such requests arises at all. 6. That the para No. 6 of the plaint is incorrect hence denied. Since answering defendants are not causing any interference into suit land so no question of any irreparable loss arises at all. 7. That the para No. 7 of the plaint is incorrect hence denied. The answering defendants never interfered into the suit land so no question of taking possession arises at all.” 3. The defendants in the written statement furnished, vis-a-vis paragraph No.2, specifically admitted the factum qua their’ being stranger(s) to the suit land. Also, in the initial aforestated, written statement, furnished to paragraphs No. 4, 5 and 7, the defendants denied qua theirs’ entering, upon, the suit land besides/denied, of, the plaintiff hence holding possession of the suit land. The defendants in the written statement furnished, vis-a-vis paragraph No.2, specifically admitted the factum qua their’ being stranger(s) to the suit land. Also, in the initial aforestated, written statement, furnished to paragraphs No. 4, 5 and 7, the defendants denied qua theirs’ entering, upon, the suit land besides/denied, of, the plaintiff hence holding possession of the suit land. However, in the application, cast under the provisions, of, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the defendants strived by seeking leave of the Court, hence to amend the aforestated paragraphs, by incorporating therein, the hereinafter extracted amendments thereto:- “(a) That the para No.2 of the written statement is to be deleted and substituted by new para No.2 as under:- “That the para No.2 of the plaint is incorrect hence denied. The answering defendants are not stranger to the suit land but defendant No.1 is owner in possession thereof. The plaintiff has verbally sold the suit land to answering defendant No.1 about 12 years ago for a sum of Rs. 27,500/- and handed over its possession to him.” (b) That the para No.4 of the written statement is to be deleted and substituted by a new para No.4 as under:- “That the para No.4 of the plaint is incorrect hence denied. Since the suit land is in possession of answering defendants, so no question of cultivation of barely crop thereon by the plaintiff arises at all. The land is cultivated by the answering defendants so no question of destroying own crops arises at all.” (c) That the para No. 7 of the written statement is to be amended by adding the words “ As the suit land is already in possession of answering defendants” at the end of para No.7 of written statement.” 4. The application, cast under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, stands allowed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff being aggrieved therefrom, has, hence motioned this Court. 5. With the defendants, in their, initially instituted written statement to paragraph 2, rather admitting the trite factum of theirs’ being strangers to the suit land, thereupon the aforesaid admission, was, throughout binding upon the defendants, and, any leave to the defendants, to renege, therefrom, by theirs’ contradictory thereto hence rearing contentions in their written statement, is grossly impermissible. 5. With the defendants, in their, initially instituted written statement to paragraph 2, rather admitting the trite factum of theirs’ being strangers to the suit land, thereupon the aforesaid admission, was, throughout binding upon the defendants, and, any leave to the defendants, to renege, therefrom, by theirs’ contradictory thereto hence rearing contentions in their written statement, is grossly impermissible. Furthermore, with this Court hence concluding of the defendants’ being barred to renege, from the initially setup written statement, to paragraph No.2, of the plaint, thereupon it was impermissible, for, the learned trial Court, to grant leave to the defendants, to also incorporate amendments, to paragraphs 2, 4 and 7 of the written statement, given thereupon the aforesaid amendments begetting graphic contradictions’ besides being antithetical, vis-à-vis, their initially setup contentions, while making, answers to paragraph No.2, of, the plaint. 6. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has not appraised, the entire material on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, suffers from perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non- appreciation of evidence on record. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned verdict is set aside. 7. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made herein above.