The requirement of proof of both right and violation is essential for granting a permanent injunction, beyond mere apprehension.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mrr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, o with Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary and Mr. Ruchirangad Singh, Advocates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satyen Vaidya, Judge This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against judgment and decree dated H30.04.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, (H.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2012 whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2008 has been reversed and set-aside.

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?

2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court.

3. The land comprised in Khata No. 65, Khatauni No.198, Khasra No. 1196/444, measuring 00-0.3-32 hectares in Up-Mohal Krishna Nagar, Ward No.1, Hamirpur (for short, “suit land”), is owned and possessed by the plaintiff.

4. The land comprised in Khasra No. 1195/444 measuring 192 sq. meters adjoins the suit land and is owned and possessed by the defendant.

5. On 02.06.2008 the plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant with a prayer to restrain him from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the suit land and from changing its nature by raising construction, cutting trees etc. A prayer in alternative was also made for the decree of vacant possession of the suit land, in case defendant succeeded in forcibly occupying and raising construction of house or wall over the same.

6. The suit was filed with the averments that the defendant in the last week of May, 2008 had started to dig the suit land with intention to raise the construction thereon. It was alleged that the defendant had also started cutting the trees and when the plaintiff had raised objection, he was threatened of dire consequences. The defendant was further alleged to have started collecting thPe building material near the suit land to make preparatio.ns for raising construction thereon.

7. The defendant filed written statement. He specifically denied the allegation of having done anything on the suit land. He submitted that a demarcation had been got carried out by the defendant of his land on 12.01.2008 which was confirmed on 12.02.2008. After ascertaining the boundaries of his plot, the defendant had raised boundary wall of his land much prior to filing of the suit. The defendant specifically mentioned that the construction work of boundary wall stood completed on 25.05.2008. According to him, no objection was raised by the plaintiff or any other Hperson when the boundary wall was being raised and subsequently, the defendant had been dragged into unnecessary litigation.

8. The plaintiff filed replication and made an averment that the demarcation got conducted by the defendant had already been assailed by the plaintiff in appeal.

9. Learned trial Court framed the following issues on

15.09.2008:- .

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the defendant is interfering with the suit land without any right to do so? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

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

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

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

7. Relief.

Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and remaining issues were answered in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed in following terms:

“17