JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 30.11.2015 and 10.07.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively, dismissing the suit filed by him.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellant herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in his possession over land falling in Rect. No.28, Killa No.2/1/2/2 (1-7) situated in Village Carterpuri, Tehsil and District Gurugram. It was averred by the plaintiff-appellant that he is owner in possession of the suit property and that the defendant-respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit property. According to the plaintiff-appellant the defendant-respondents are strong-headed, powerful and influential persons who are interfering in his peaceful ownership and possession over the suit property and are also adamant to dispossess him illegally and unlawfully. It was further averred that the defendant-respondents have threatened the plaintiff-appellant to falsely implicate him and his family members in criminal case instituted under SC/ST Act. The defendant-respondents filed written statement and contested the suit. They raised preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel and valuation. It was contended that the plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit with a malafide intention to restrain the Harijan Community of village Carterpuri from using and utilizing their own land reserved for Tanghat' from which the community had been taking water since times immemorial. The site plan submitted by the plaintiff-appellant was stated to being incorrect and it was stated that the land on which the Panghat' was situated belonged to HUDA, Gurgaon which had carved out several residential plots and have allotted the same to different persons who have already constructed their houses thereon. It was submitted that plaintiff-appellant had produced an incorrect site plan so as to grab the property of Harijan Community and it was denied that the defendants were trying to interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff-appellant. According to the defendant-respondents the Harijan community of the village had been drawing fresh drinking water from the land of Panghat' in Killa No.26 of Rect. No.28.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property marked by letters ABCD and shown in red color as detailed in para no.1 of the plaint and from encroaching upon any portion of the said suit property or any part thereof and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property or any part thereof ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the said encroachment and restore the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property ? OPP

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

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

5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed with material facts and has not come with clean hands before the court ? OPD

6. Whether the present suit is neither maintainable nor tenable in the eye of law ? OPD

7. Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own acts, conduct, admissions, commissions, omissions, acquiescence and latches ? OPD

9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD

10. Relief.

4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015 dismissed the suit. Aggrieve