Concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings. The court upheld the lower courts' judgments and decrees based on the correct appreciation of evidence.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Instant Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 18.1.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 46-G/XIII/2004, affirming judgment and decree dated 9.1.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 133 of 1999, whereby suit for injunction having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘plaintiff’) came to be decreed.

2. Facts sans unnecessary details, as emerges from the record are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellants-defendants (hereinafter, ‘defendants’) from raising construction over the land comprised in Khata No. 69 min Khatauni No. 80, Khasra No. 179 measuring 0-07-28 hectares as described in Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, situate in Mohal and Mauza Majhin, Tehsil Khundian, Tehsil Dehra, Dsitrict Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘suit land’) and in the alternative, decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to restore the suit land to its original position after demolition of structure. Plaintiff specifically alleged in the plaint that the suit land is owned and possessed by him and his brothers being co-sharers, whereas, defendants have no right, title or interest over the same, as such they being strangers, have no right, title or interest to raise construction over the suit land. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants started collecting building material i.e. sand, cement, bricks and iron with a view to raise construction forcibly over the suit land by raising pillars. Since despite repeated requests defendants failed to accede to the request of the plaintiff not to raise construction, plaintiff was compelled to file suit.

3. Defendants by way of written statement refuted aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel and suppression of material facts. On merits, defendants did not dispute ownership and possession of the suit land but claimed that they are owner of adjoining land. Defendants further claimed that neither they had collected building material on suit land nor they raised construction on the suit land as such, suit deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs by way of replication reaffirmed and reasserted his claim set up in the plaint but specifically denied the contents of the written statement. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned trial Court framed following issues for determination:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Relief.

4. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants by decree of perpetual injunction from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or raising construction over the suit land, in any manner whatsoever. Learned trial Court further directed the defendants by way of decree of mandatory injunction to demolish the structure raised by them over the part of disputed land i.e. Khasra No. 179/1 during the pendency of the suit and to restore the land to its original position.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, defendants filed an appeal under Section 94 CPC in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, however, the fact remains that the same was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In this background, the defendants have come before this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for setting aside judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below.

6. Vide order dated 7.4.2008, this Court admitted the