The court affirmed that ownership and possession rights established through legal proceedings protect co-owners from unauthorized interference, and minor misdescriptions in pleadings do not invalidate otherwise valid claims.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 24.6.2003, passed by learned Sub Judge, First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit property described in para-2 of the plaint. An alternative relief of possession was also sought in case the plaintiffs were found to be out of possession. It was asserted that there was a dispute between the defendants and the father of the plaintiff No.1 regarding the suit land. The father of plaintiff No.1 had filed a civil suit, which was decided on 15.9.1988. The plaintiffs and defendants were declared co- owners. The defendants did not file any appeal, and the decree attained finality. The father of plaintiff No. 1 filed two applications for partition of the land, and the land was partitioned. The defendants interfered with the plaintiffs’ possession even after the partition. They have no right to do so. Hence, a civil suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the plaintiffs being estopped to file the suit, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction, lack of cause of action and the maintainability, and the suit being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that the father of the plaintiff no. 1 had applied for partition, and the land was partitioned by the revenue Court. It was asserted that there was no land comprised in Khasra No.228/1, 261, 341, 342, measuring 1-9-3 bigha in Mohal Dhalog. Khasra No.228 was in exclusive possession of the defendant and was not partitioned. This Khasra number is located in Mohal Sanana, and the defendants No.1 and 4 have raised a shed on Khasra No.228/1, measuring 0-1-3 bigha before the institution of the suit. This land was wrongly allotted to the father of plaintiff No.1. No warrant of possession was issued, and the defendants remained in possession. The defendants had also filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, and the appeal was pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. The suit land was in exclusive possession of the defendants. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 27.8.2002: -

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP.

2. In case plaintiffs are found out of possession during the pendency of the suit, whether the plaintiffs are also entitled for possession alternatively? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own act, conduct, and deeds? OPD.

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP.

5. Whether there is no cause of action? OPD.

6. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD.

7. Whether the suit suffers on account of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

8. Whether the plaintiffs are