The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove their title on the suit property and the court's reliance on evidence to determine ownership and entitlement to possession.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgement and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby their suit for possession and mandatory injunction has been dismissed. The Trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff- appellants.

2. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for possession of the suit property marked as ABCDEF in the site plan shown in red colour from the defendant-respondents on the grounds that the suit property was the ownership of the plaintiff-appellant No.1 and in the mid of 2012 the defendant-respondents had illegally encroached upon the suit property and had raised construction of toilet, khurli, shed and installed a toka machine forcibly and illegally. In the suit the possession of the suit property was sought from the defendant-respondents along with the relief of mandatory injunction directing them to demolish the khurli, toilet, temporary shed and remove the toka machine.

3. In their written statement the defendant-respondents denied the title of the plaintiff-appellants over the suit property and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. It was also contended that the matter involved in the present suit had already been decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction and as such it could not be agitated through the present suit. The defendant- respondents further stated that there was no ground for removing the construction raised by their father, Nathu Ram, on his own land. Additional objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, concealment of material facts, suit being not maintainable, estoppel, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit being barred under Section 11 and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC were raised.

4. The plaintiff-appellants filed a replication to the written statement wherein the facts as stated in the plaint were reiterated and those in the written statement were denied. The Trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing defendants to demolish khurli, latrine, gohara etc. as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether suit is barred by law of res-judicata? OPD

4. Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

5. Relief.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced, vide judgement and decree dated 15.04.2017 the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants holding inter-alia that

"it is proved that defendants are owners of only 78 sq. yards area over which they have constructed their house and the remaining area encroached upon by them, certainly belongs to plaintiffs". The Trial Court also found that the suit of the plaintiff-appellants was not barred by limitation or res-judicata. It was held that the plaintiff-appellants "entitled to possession of property marked as ABCDEF in red colour in site plan Ex.P8 and Ex.P8/A being part and parcel of property belonging to Murti Shri Vishnu Avtar Baba Ram Dev installed in Mandir Vishnu Avtar Baba Ram and Dharamshala Rewarian, situated at Rewarian Mohalla, Nabha District Patiala. Defendants are directed to demolish/remove khurli, latrine, gohara, temporary shed etc. therefrom and to deliver vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiffs within a period of two months from the date of decree".

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondents and the same was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.03.2021. The lower Appellate Court inter-alia held that :

"19) The plaintiffs have alleged that the plaintiff no.1 is the juristic person and Idol of Murti Shri Vishnu Avtar Baba Ram Dev is situated there. The plaintiff no.2 is managing the affairs of the said temple and Dharamshala being President of the Rewarian Community. In this regard the proceedings of the meeting conducted by t