Dr. Shekher Dhawan, J.:-

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kurukshetra was accepted and the findings of the Court of first instance were reversed.

2. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to the parties is being made as per their status in the Civil Suit.

3. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that plaintiff Anil Kumar had filed suit for permanent injunction for issuance of restrain order against the defendants/appellants from raising any construction or installing mobile tower in khasra No. 445/3, forcibly and illegally. The plaintiff claimed himself to be owner in possession of said khasra number as a co-sharer. As per plaintiff, the defendants wanted to erect tower on the same without any right, title or interest and, as such, the necessity of the suit. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit thereby taking preliminary objections regarding concealment of material facts, locus standi, estoppel, nonjoinder of necessary parties.

4. On merits, defendant No. 1 took the plea that they had taken the land on lease measuring 60 feet x 60 feet comprised in khasra No. 446/2 from Gurmeet Kaur and Gurdial Singh. On the basis of lease deed dated 31.08.2004, the construction work had already been completed and the requisite charges were deposited with the Municipal Committee, Ladwa and prayed that the suit be dismissed. Defendant No. 1 proceeded against ex-parte before the Court of first instance as well.

5. On separate application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defendants No. 3 and 4 were impleaded vide order dated 25.03.2005. The plea was taken by them that mobile tower had already been installed in khasra No. 446/2, which was owned by them as they had purchased the said land measuring 11 marlas vide sale deed dated 03.05.1989, land measuring 12 marlas vide sale deed dated 23.04.1981 and land measuring 8 marlas vide sale deed dated 17.07.1985. The plaintiff has no concern with the said khasra No. 446/2.

6. On these facts, the trial Court settled the following issues and the parties were put to trial:

"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful ownership and possession as a co-sharer over the land in dispute and also restraining them from raising the construction of a mobile phone tower on the same? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

5. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD

6. Relief."

7. Learned Court of first instance, after considering the material and oral as well as documentary evidence available on file decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff whereas issues No. 2 to 5 were not pressed and consequently the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

8. Being aggrieved of passing of said judgment and decree, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The first appellate Court accepted the appeal and reversed the findings and suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed thereby restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession over the suit land or from raising any construction of their transmission tower over land comprised in khasra No. 445/3, situated at village Ladwa. The First Appellate Court also issued directions to the defendants to remove the encroachment made over the disputed land within the period of thre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document