JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 19.04.2017 and 14.11.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively, dismissing his suit for permanent injunction.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents averring that he is a co-sharer and in possession of the suit land and that the defendant-respondents have no concern, right or title over it. It was alleged that the defendant-respondents wanted to raise construction over the portion of the plaintiff-appellant though the suit land had not been partitioned till now and though the plaintiff-appellant had requested the defendant-respondents several times not to raise construction without any partition, but they did not pay heed to his requests. Hence, the suit. The defendant-respondents filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, concealment of true facts, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, limitation, proper court fees and jurisdiction. On merits it was submitted that the plaintiff-appellant is not a co-sharer in the suit land and has no concern with the same. According to the defendant-respondents the Smt. Dhanoli Devi (wife of defendant-respondent No.1 and mother of defendant-respondent No.2) had purchased a plot measuring 3 Marlas out of the land measuring 04 Kanals in khasra no.4852/1 (4-0) and the same was adjoining to other land in which the plaintiff-appellant along with some other persons had carved out a colony by the name of Om Enclave'. The sale deed in favour of Smt. Dhanoli Devi was dated 10.03.2015 for Rs.10,12,000/- and Mutation No.12505 dated 25.6.2015 was also sanctioned in her favour. Earlier the plot was owned by Smt. Sheela Kumari. According to the defendant-respondents the plaintiff-appellant was an anti-social element and land grabber. He and his accomplices carved out colonies and sold plots to the innocent public and then involved them in unnecessary litigation to extract money. The plaintiff-appellant had earlier filed a suit titled as Ravinder Saini Vs. Smt. Sheela etc. along with injunction application which was dismissed by the civil court. Another suit titled Ravinder Singh Saini Vs. Municipal Corporation Hisar etc. filed by the plaintiff-appellant held that the residents of Om Enclave are fully entitled to get the civic amenities, and the stay application of the plaintiff-appellant herein was dismissed. It was submitted that the suit land is part of a colony which was carved out many years back and all the civic amenities had already been provided by the Government. Replication was filed reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying those of the written statement.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for injunction as prayed for in the head note of the plaint ? OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD

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

8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD

9. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? OPD

10. Relief.

4. The Trial Cout dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide j