The court emphasized the importance of evidence in property disputes and upheld the principle of possession and demarcation reports as crucial in determining rights.

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

This is plaintiffs’ second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction filed against the defendants was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2011 and further appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2012.

As per the averments made in the suit, plaintiff/appellants are cosharers in the suit property and they have constructed their houses in the suit property and are residing since long. According to the appellants, the defendants in order to grab their property, in connivance with the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, wanted to carve out a Nali in the Eastern side of Killa No.6 illegally and forcibly and thus, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

On the other hand, defendants no.1 to 28 filed their joint written statement submitting therein that it were the plaintiffs who had the intention to grab the property of the defendants. According to the defendants, property of the plaintiffs and defendants adjoins each other and the defendants after getting the suit property demarcated on 15.2.2007, got constructed a pucca boundary wall on their land and in between the property of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants and thus, the question of encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff or making any Nali over the same does not arise. It was further averred that the defendants were in actual, physical and continuous possession of the property of their ownership, on which, they have constructed their residential houses.

Defendant no.29 in its written statement alleged that the land in dispute is adjacent to the Firni towards the Eastern side and the Firni vests in the Gram Panchayat and is being used for common purposes. The Gram Panchayat wants to dig out a Nala through the Firni in order to drain out the rainy and dirty water of the village for the benefit of the village community. The plaintiffs under the garb of present suit, want to obstruct the development work of the Gram Panchayat illegally and forcibly.

Replication was filed by the plaintiffs controverting the stand of the defendants.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction with respect of the suit property as detailed in the plaint? OPP

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

3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties because Gram Panchayat has been made as defendant unnecessarily? OPD

4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed because of the concealment of material facts? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locusstandi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

6. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD

7. Relief.”

Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court decided issue no.1 against the plaintiffs and issues no.2 to 6 were decided against the defendants.

Resultantly, the suit was dismissed with costs. While dismissing the suit, the trial Court observed as under:

“10. After going through the entire evidence led by both the parties and after considering the rival contentions, it is amply clear that the property of the plaintiffs and the defendants adjoins to each other. It is also not disputed that a local commissioner got appointed by the defendants has visited the spot and demarcated the suit property at the spot. It is also proved from the evidence of the parties that after the demarcation of the properties by the local commissioner a boundary will was constructed by the defendants at the spot in accordance with the demarcation report dated 15.02.2007. The claim of the plaintiffs that the boundary wall was