JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The plaintiff-respondent (Piare Lal) since deceased filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from making any construction at point 'XY' in the plot shown by letters ABCD in the site-plan or in the alternative if the defendants succeed in raising the construction over the plot, then a decree for mandatory injunction for demolishing the same on the allegations that the plaintiff is one of the co-owner in possession of a house situated in the Abadi of village Langra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The same is shown as ABCD in the site plan as Ahata No. 23, Ghar No. 23 as per Shizra Khasra Pamiesh Abadi of village Langra and is bounded in the East: house of Nanak son of Chitru, situated in Ghar No. 22 which also belongs to the plaintiff and other co-sharers, in the West: house of defendants which falls in Ghar No. 26, Ahata No. 26, in the North: open land of the plaintiff and in the South: houses of Pran Sukh and Ram Parshad and Shamlat Deh and Rasta. The defendants threatened to encroach upon the plot of the plaintiff and other cosharers without any right or title. They intended to include the portion of the plaintiff's plot in their property by constructing a wall on it and started digging foundation shown as 'XY' in the site plan. They had collected building material for raising construction. Hence the suit.

2. Notice of the suit was served upon defendants.

3. They contested the suit by filing joint written statement raising preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit; that the site plan of the plaintiff is incorrect; that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the suit has been filed with malafide intention. It was denied that the plaintiff is one of the co-owner in possession of the plot in dispute and that it bears Ahata No. 23, Ghar No. 23 as alleged. The boundaries and the site plan are incorrect. It was denied that the defendants wanted to encroach upon any particular portion of the plot of the plaintiff or his brother. The defendants further denied that the plot where they wanted to raise wall belongs to the plaintiff or his brother, but the defendants are in peaceful possession of it since long and it is owned by them. Pedigree table filed by the plaintiff is not correct.

4. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

'1. Whether the plaintiff is one of the co-owners in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file this present suit? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the parties as alleged? OPP

4. Whether the suit is malafide and false as alleged?

5. Relief.

5-A Whether the report of local Commissioner is liable to be set aside? OPD'

5. Both the parties were granted opportunity to lead evidence.

6. After hearing arguments, learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon vide judgement dated 13.06.1989 decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit property.

7. Aggrieved by the judgement dated 13.06.1989, the defendants preferred an appeal before learned District Judge, Gurgaon which was dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 03.03.1992.

8. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree so passed, the present appeal has been filed.

9. The appeal was admitted on 14.12.1992.

10. Notice of the appeal was issued to the appellants on 21.02.2023.

11. The appeal was directed to be listed for final disposal in the urgent list after notifying Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel representing the respondents vide order dated 16.10.2023.

12. Lower Court Record was requisitioned vide order dated 16.01.2025.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record. The findings recorded by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon and affirmed by learned District Judge, Gurgaon are contradictory and are based