A person in lawful possession is entitled to seek injunctive relief against interference, affirming the necessity of protecting possession rights.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

1. The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2007 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sarkaghat District Mandi in Civil Suit No. 243.

2. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit before the Ld. Trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from digging the suit land, using it as a path, projecting the eaves of their proposed house, or discharging water from their proposed house onto the suit land. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish any construction and restore the suit land to its original position if they succeeded in raising any construction during the pendency of the suit. It was pleaded that the suit land was recorded in the names of Om Prakash, Vidya Devi, and Ranjeet, and the plaintiff was recorded as being in possession as owner. The defendants, who were strangers to the suit land, were raising construction in Khasra No. 893/306 and had allegedly dug a portion of the suit land, damaging its boundaries. They were also threatening to extend their construction towards the suit land and discharge water onto it.Despite requests, they persisted, leading to the filing of the suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, lack of cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, and incorrect mention of their village. On merits, they denied the plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the suit land, asserting that the plaintiff had no right to file the suit. They referred to an application moved by the plaintiff’s sons before the Ld. Assistant Collector Grade-15, Sarkaghat, for correction of revenue entries, wherein the plaintiff had allegedly admitted that he was not in possession of the suit land. The defendants claimed that they were constructing on their own land and that a public path existed over the suit land, which had been used by them and the public since time immemorial. They further alleged that the plaintiff and his son had executed an agreement to sell a portion of the suit land (one biswas) to the defendants for Rs. 10,000/- as advance, with possession already delivered, thereby divesting the plaintiff of any rights over the land.

4. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the plaint’s averments. The Ld.Trial Court framed the following issues on 04.12.2004:

1. Whether the plaintiff, being the owner in possession of the suit land, is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether there exists a public path through Khasra No. 187 (suit land) since time immemorial, as alleged? OPD.

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD.

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

5. Whether the village of the defendants has wrongly been mentioned as Kher, but the defendants are residing at village Lower Barot?

6. Relief.

5. The parties led their respective evidence, with the plaintiff examining himself as PW-1, Krishn Devi as PW-2, and Dinesh Kamal as PW-3. The defendants examined Krishan Chand (Defendant No. 1) as DW-1, Khayali Ram as DW-2, Kanwar Singh as DW-3, and Tulsi Ram as DW-4.

6. The Ld. Trial Court held that the plaintiff had successfully proved his ownership and possession of the suit land, while the defendants failed to establish the existence of a public path over the suit land used since time immemorial. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this judgment, the defendants preferred the present appeal, contending that the Ld. Trial Court had misappreciated the e