IN THE HI 113 Sukhdev Singh Dhan Dhan Ba CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, Court against whereby the permanent in illegally and Management peaceful and ABCD shown measuring 14 14), village G c)demolishing has been decr E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ingh Vs. n Bapu Kumbh Dass Ji & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocat Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocat Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocat Mr. Arjun Sangwan, Advoca for the respondent. *** PTA, J. The defendant No.1 is in inst the concurrent findings of the suit of the plaintiffs/responde t injunction restraining the appe nd forcibly: a) causing any obst ent Committee of Respondent; b) nd exclusive possession of plaintif wn as 'red' in colour in the site pl 14 Marlas bearing Khata No. 154 e Garhi, Tehsil Garhshankar (herei hing the existing constructions exis decreed. Page 1 of 16 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2205-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ocate with ocate ocate vocate is in second appeal before this of the learned Courts below ndents No.1 and 2 herein, for appellant/defendant No.1 from obstructions in functioning of b) Interfering into the lawful and intiff in the property marked as e plan attached with the plaint, 154/222, Khasra No. 18/16/4(0- ereinafter ‘The Suit Property’); existing over the suit property, 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2. status before no.1’ and the r 3. that the plaint Committee ma President and resolution dat President and plaintiff No.1. in exclusive po and marked a marlas bearin Jamabandi for Garhshankar kutia and sub plaintiff No.1. time of Bapu K is co-sharer in strangers and Further averm the defendan plaintiffs thro The parties shall hereinaft ore the learned trial Court i.e. the the respondents as ‘the plaintiffs’. The brief facts of the case laintiff No.1 is a juristic person bein e managing the affairs of plaintiff N and Paramjit is the Vice President dated 11.10.2009 passed by the and Vice President were authorize o.1. It was the pleaded case of the p e possession as owners/co-sharers ed as ABCD shown in read colour aring Khata No.154/222, Khasra i for the year 2006-07situated in th kar/ the suit property. On the suit p submersible pump constructed a o.1. Religious pooja place (dhoona) pu Kumbh Dass Ji. It was further ple er in the land of joint Khata where and they have no right title or i erment was made in the plaint tha dants in connivance with each through members of the Comm inafter be referred to as per their . the appellant as ‘the defendant fs’. case as put forth in the plaint are being the registered Management iff No.1. Surinder Pal Verma is the dent of the said Committee. Vide the Management Committee, the rized to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are rers in land measuring 0-14 marlas our in the site plan measuring 14 sra Nos.18//16/4 (0-14) as per in the area of village Garhi, Tehsil uit property, there are two rooms ed and installed by followers of ona) is also in existence since the r pleaded that the defendant No.1 hereas defendants No.2 to 4 are or interest in the suit property. that for the last about one week, ch other were threatening the mmittee that they will forcibly 16 eir nt re nt he ide he of are las 14 er sil ms of he o.1 are ty. ek, he bly SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document interfere into The defenda constructions The said threa facts; and the defendants su from their act was filed. 4. written statem plaint inter ali present suit; t under the ga common prop and the plaint site in dispute construction c site plan of th per revenue r plaintiffs is ad pump also fa defendants ha cannot be allo nto the lawful, peaceful and exclusi ndants threatened that they ons and submersible pump and the hreats of the defendants are wron the plaintiffs will suffer irreparab ts succeed. The defendants were r activities, however, to no avail. W Upon notice, the defenda atement contesting the suit denyin r alia stating that the plaintiffs have it; the plaintiffs had not come to th garb of present suit, plaintiffs property; plaintiffs had not joined t laintiffs should be directed to produ ute; the Dhoona shown by the plai on clearly falls within the western f the defendants which has been p ue record with the measurement; a s admitted then the rasta would be o falls within the northern kach s have every right to block the illeg allowed to encroach upon the publi clusive possession of the plaintiffs. ey will demolish the existing the Dhoona illegally and forcibly. rong, illegal and against law and arable loss and injury in case the ere asked many times to refrain il. With these averments, the suit endants appeared and filed their nying the averments made in the have no cause of action to file the o the Court with clean hands; that iffs want to encroach upon the ed the Gram Panchayat as party; roduce exact measurement of the plaintiffs in their site plan and the ern rasta which is depicted in the en prepared at the spot strictly as nt; and in case the version of the be blocked; that the submersible kacha rasta; and therefore, the illegal move of the plaintiffs who ublic passage. 16 ffs. ing ly. nd he ain uit eir he he at he ty; he he he as he ble he ho SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. were framed: 6. evidence brou the suit in fav before the le dismissed vide second appeal 7. No.1submits t on the basis appointed by C it is shown th On the basis of pleading o ed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff no.1 possession of the suit site as de note of the plaint and shown in th 2. Whether the site plan filed by th 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether plaintiffs have not c hands and under the garb of the p encroach upon the passage as dep the other revenue record? OPD 5. Whether the Gram Panchaya necessary and proper party and misjoinder? OPD 6. Relief.” Upon consideration of the brought on record by the parties, th favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant e learned Additional District Jud vide judgment and decree dated peal by defendant No.1. Learned counsel for its that the suit of the respondents asis of report dated 01.01.2011 by Court. It is submitted that even a n that the illegal construction/Dho ng of the parties, following issues no.1 is co-owner in exclusive s detailed and described in head in the attached site plan? OPP by the plaintiff is correct? OPP titled to the relief of permanent ot come to the court with clean the present suit, they are trying to depicted in the Aks Shajra and in hayat of Village Garhi Matton is and therefore, the suit is bad for the entire oral and documentary s, the learned trial Court decreed ants No.1 and 2 went in appeal Judge, Hoshiarpur which was ted 06.08.2022. Hence, present for the appellant/defendant ents/plaintiffs has been decreed 11 of the Local Commissioner ven as per the said report (Ex.P1) /Dhoona raised by the plaintiffs 16 es ive ad ent an to in is for SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document falls in Khasra the passage proven/admitt upon public la not have been 8. Commissioner proved. The basis of an un not filed any o the correctnes the site plan However, the brought by th the pleas of t falsifying their 9. position as t submersible p of rebuttal, th there was als khasra numbe plan as produ asra No.18//16/4 and “half share fa age”. It is submitted that the mitted fact it becomes clear, that th lic land i.e. the passage; and thus, een decreed. It is submitted that as p oner himself the encroachment be said report could not have bee n unreliable site plan produced by ny objections to the said report an tness of the report. The version of t plan is that the Dhoona exists o the report is to the contrary and th y the plaintiffs before the Courts. L f the plaintiffs are inconsistent w heir own pleas. The plaintiff initially in as to khasra No.18//16/4 being le pump and dhuni. However, durin l, the plaintiff again examined him also a rasta left out back in the mber, which is neither originally ple roduced. It does not lie in the m re falls in khasra No.18//16/6 in therefore, in view of this at the plaintiffs have encroached s, the suit of the plaintiffs could as per the report of the Local t being done by the plaintiffs is been discarded merely on the by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have rt and in fact PW1 has admitted of the plaintiffs in the plaint and ts only in Khasra No.18//16/4. d the correct fact has not been ts. Learned counsel submits that t with the suit version, thereby in his pleading explained the ing only comprising of room, uring course of trial, at the time himself in rebuttal alleging that the year 2008 in the aforesaid y pleaded nor shown in the site he mouth of plaintiff to assert 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document different actu and factual po inconsistent. decrees of the 10. on caveat veh appellant/defe locus to illegal has admitted owners of the the suit prope property; and plaintiffs. It is No.1 is a stra interest thereu 11. are encroach construction dispossessed assuming ther concerned Mu any. It is subm the plaintiffs actual and factual position in p l position at the time of rebuttal, nt. It is accordingly prayed that th f the learned Courts below be set as Per contra, learned counse vehemently opposes the submissi defendant No.1 and submits that legally threaten the plaintiffs. In fact ted before the learned Courts belo f the suit property; that constructio roperty; that the plaintiffs are in exc and that the electric connection the It is submitted that in view of thes stranger to the suit property and ereupon to illegally threaten the pla It is submitted that even achers or have raised illegal co on beyond the suit property, sed except “in due course of law there is any encroachment by the Municipal Corporation to take ac ubmitted that how can the defenda iffs’ structures on his own. In suppor in plaint and different actual ttal, thereby making his version t the impugned judgments and t aside. unsel for the plaintiffs appearing issions made on behalf of the hat the defendant No.1 has no fact the defendant No.1 himself below that the plaintiffs are the uction of the plaintiffs exists on exclusive possession of the suit thereupon is in the name of the these admissions the defendant and having no right, title and e plaintiffs. ven assuming that the plaintiffs l construction or have raised rty, the plaintiffs cannot be f law”. It is argued that even the plaintiffs, then it is for the e action against the plaintiffs, if ndant No.1 take action or break pport of his contentions, learned 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document counsel relies Mahendru” La Kumar” Law Others” Law F & Others” La Singh” Law Fin Law Finder Do Finder Doc ID “Walter Louis through LRs” L 12. 13. perused the ca 14. present appea request of l 28.10.2022, 16 12.07.2024, 02 15. the appellant/ and possessio established on been admitted lies upon judgments of this Court in ” Law Finder Doc ID # 50486; “Kala aw Finder Doc ID # 635390; “Ja aw Finder Doc ID # 1468149; “Tara ” Law Finder Doc ID # 1464727; w Finder Doc ID # 18843; “Siri Kisha r Doc ID # 122401; “Nahar Singh & c ID # 18928; and judgment of ouis Franklin (dead) through LRs Rs” Law Finder Doc ID # 35314. No other argument is raise I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. At the very outset it ma ppeal is of the year 2022 and the s f learned counsel for the app 2, 16.12.2022, 18.04.2023, 02.08.20 4, 02.08.2024 and 28.11.2024. Before proceeding to deal lant/defendant no.1, it may be poin ession of the plaintiff over the on record by way of overwhelm itted by the defendants themselves rt in “Ravi Chopra Vs. Shri Jajpal Kala Singh & Others Vs. Mukesh “Jagga Ram Vs. Rattan Lal & Tara Chand & Others Vs. Siri Pal 27; “Bachan Singh Vs. Swaran ishan Vs. Dharampal & Others” h & Others Vs. Kaka Singh” Law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in LRs Vs. George Singh (dead) aised on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and may be pointed out that the he same has been adjourned at appellant/defendant No.1 on 8.2023, 16.11.2023, 09.02.2024, eal with the argument raised by pointed out that the ownership he suit property is irrefutably helming evidence. This fact has lves in their evidence before the 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned trial c No. 154/22 is only Plaintiffs property. Furt over the suit that the Dhoo that Bapu Kum that the muta 07 pertaining examination t the Plaintiff is disputed prop Kashmiri Lal p suit property i Kumbh Dass. but that woul peaceful poss Court rightly evidences re interfering in f from suit prop course of law. ial court.Perusal of Jamabandi for 2 2 is jointly owned by co-sharers in tiffs are shown to be in exclus Further, the Defendants admitted suit property; DW1 Sukhdev Singh hoona is present at the disputed pr Kumbh Dass is the owner of the dis utation sanctioned in favour of Pla ing to disputed property is correct on that the Plaintiff purchased the iff is a registered society. Even DW2 property was purchased by Bapu al proved on record Ex. PW4/A the rty in the name of Surinder Pal Verm ss. No doubt, Defendant no.1 is a ould not vest any right in the De ossession of Plaintiff over the suit tly decreed the suit on 14.10.2016 restraining the Defendants fro in functioning of Plaintiff Committe property or demolishing constructio law. Page 8 of 16 or 2006-07 shows that the Khata rs including Defendant no.1, yet clusive possession of disputed ted the construction of Plaintiff ngh admits in cross-examination d property; DW1 further admits disputed property; Also, admits f Plaintiff in Jamabandi for 2006- rect; DW1 again admits in cross- the disputed property and that DW2 Dhani Ram admits that the apu Kumbh Dass. Further PW4 the Electricity Bill regarding the Verma, President of Society Baba is a co-sharer in the joint Khata Defendants to interfere in the suit property. Thus, the Ld. Trial 2016 on the basis of the above from illegally and forcefully ittee, dispossessing the Plaintiff uction of Plaintiff, except in due 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. the defendant permanent in Khasra Nos.1 Commissioner construction r the passage” of the plaintiff 17. appears to be the same is b Commissioner 18//16/4 and by Gram Panc sought). Furth 06.11.2008 (E Kaur to Plainti 18. recorded by th impugned judg The main crux of the argum dant No.1 is that the plaintiffs had f t injunction only with regard to t os.18//16/4 (0-14); however, as oner (Ex.P1) it has been informed on raised by plaintiffs/Dhoona falls ge”. It has been contended that thu intiffs is proven. At first blush, the said o be appealing however, upon a de is borne out to be incorrect. Firstly oner (Annexure P1) half portion o and remaining half is in Khasra 18// Panchayat (and not by Defendant urther, the Plaintiff has brought 8 (Ex. PA) whereby two Karam wide aintiff for the purpose of passage. In regard to the above fac by the learned Lower Appellate Cou judgment and decree dated 06.08.2 “15. I have gone through the Verma, President of Plaintiff No proving averments of the pla corroboration from the oral test rguments advanced on behalf of ad filed the present suit seeking to the suit property existing in as per the report of Local med that the half share of the falls in “Khasra No.18//16/6 in thus, the encroachment on part aid argument of the appellant a detailed perusal of the record irstly, as per the report of Local on of Dhoona is in Khasra no. 8//16/6 which is passage owned ant against whom injunction is ght on record resolution dated wide land was given by Darshan facts, I refer to the findings as Court in paras 15 and 18 of the .08.2022 which reads as follows: the record. PW-1 Surinder Pal f No.1 society made statement plaint. His this version find testimony of PW-2 Dhani Ram 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and PW-3 Lakha Singh who are f 1. The plaintiffs further brought o dated 11.10.2009 Ex.P1 whereby authorized its President Surind President Paramjit to institute and site plan of the suit property as s in possession of the plaintiffs. Ex. the year 2006-07 of land meas showing that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 sharers in joint khata bearing plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are recorde Khasra No.18//16/4(0-14) i.e. the also brought on record copy of r Ex. PA whereby two karam wide Kaur to plaintiff for the purpose of XXX 18. DW-1 Sukhdev Singh stated in Bapu Kumbh Dass Ji is owner of land is 26 kanals 7 marlas where co-sharers; except plaintiff No. 1 to run the institution out of abov measuring 14 marlas is in possess eastern side of the Bohli there i electricity connection has been g society. So, from this statemen defendant No. 1 also it is clear tha exclusive possession over the suit The plaintiffs also brought on r regarding installation of electric property, which has been proved are in settled exclusive possessio are followers of the plaintiff No. ght on record copy of resolution ereby plaintiff No.1 Society has urinder Pal Verma and Vice e and prosecute this suit. Ex.P2 is as shown red in colour which is . Ex. P3 is copy of jamabandi for measuring 26 kanals 7 marlas nd 2 and defendant No.1 are co- aring No. 154/220. However, corded in exclusive possession of . the suit property. The plaintiff of resolution dated 06.11.2008 ide land was given by Darshan se of passage. ted in his cross examination that r of the suit property; the total herein plaintiffs are recorded as o. 1 there is no other committee above said khasra number, land ssession of the plaintiff; towards ere is a submersible pump and en got installed by the plaintiff ment of DW-1 Sukhdev Singh, r that the plaintiffs are in settled e suit property being co-sharers. on record bill/ledger Ex.PW4/A ectricity connection in the suit oved by DW-1. As the plaintiffs ession of the suit properly being 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19. dated 06.11.20 by Darshan Ka any ‘encroach been observed far as the repo relevant as the injunction is b the defendant co-sharers, they are entitled to against illegal and forcible defendant No. 1 is a co-sharer in t no right to interfere in exclusive plaintiffs over the suit property, ill due course of law. The remedy av partition of the suit joint land. Local Commissioner is concerned the defendants because it is no encroachment. Through this suit simple relief of injunction ag dispossession except in due cou learned lower court has rightly entitled to injunction as prayed fo out to interfere in the findings re court on the above said issues and upheld.” From the above it is clear 1.2008 (Ex.PA) even the passage lan n Kaur. As such, strictly speaking, it oachment’ by the plaintiffs. Even rved by the learned Additional Dist report of the Local Commissioner is s the present case is not of remova is being sought against the illegal a dants “exceptin due course of law”. Page 11 of 16 ed to protect their possession ible dispossession. Although, r in the joint khewat, but, he has lusive settled possession of the ty, illegally and forcibly except in dy available with them is to seek So far as report Ex. D1 of the rned, the same is of no avail to is not the case of removal of suit the plaintiffs have sought against illegal and forcible course of law. Therefore, the htly held that the plaintiffs are ed for. Thus. no ground is made gs returned by the learned lower s and the same are affirmed and (Emphasis added) clear that as per the Resolution e land was gifted to the plaintiffs g, it cannot be said that there is ven otherwise, as has correctly District Judge Hoshiarpur that as er is concerned, the same is not oval of encroachment rather an gal and forcible dispossession of w”. 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20. behalf of the p them, even th possession of favour of the p is therefore or effect that def from causing a Committee of peaceful and e ABCD shown r Khata no.154/ year 2006-07 s from demolish except in due c future.” 21. favour of the sort of obstru plaintiff No.1; possession an the submissio for the sake o Furthermore, I find merit in the plaintiffs that even assuming, th n then the defendants have no locu n of the plaintiffs over the suit pro the plaintiffs only restrains the defe re ordered that the suit of the plain t defendants are restrained themselv ing any sort of obstructions in the fu e of the plaintiff no.1 and from inte nd exclusive possession of plaintiffs wn red in colour in the site plan m 154/222, Khasra nos. 18//16/4 (0- 07 situated in the area of Village Ga olishing the existing constructions due course of law and defendants be Thus, the decree passed a the plaintiffs is for restraining the d struction in the functions of the o.1; and from interfering in the la n and from demolishing the existing issions made on behalf of the plaint ke of argument that an encroachm rit in the argument advanced on , there is any ‘encroachment’ by locus to interfere in the peaceful property. The decree passed in defendants from/ directs that:“It plaintiff is hereby decreed to the mselves or through anybody else he functions of the Management interfering into the lawful and intiffs in the property marked as n measuring 14 marlas bearing -14) as per jamabandi for the ge Garhi, Tehsil Garhshankar and tions etc. illegally and forcibly ts be restrained from doing so in d against the defendants and in he defendants from causing any the Management Committee of e lawful, peaceful and exclusive ting constructions. I find merit in laintiff that even if it is assumed chment exists upon and beyond 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the suit prope hands and see own. It is for required, in a learned coun dispossessed, caused in the This is especia interest in the No.1 in his measuring 14 settled exclus therefore they forcible dispo connection ins duly proved b No.1 is a co- right to inter plaintiffs of th law”. 22. Bench judgme operty, the defendants have no auth seek to demolish the said allegedly for the concerned Municipal Co in accordance with law. It has bee counsel for the plaintiffs that sed, or existing constructions be the functioning of the plaintiffs “ ecially so as admittedly, the defenda the suit property. What more, as his testimony as DW1 has himse 14 marlas is in possession of plaint clusive possession over suit prope they are entitled to protect their p ispossession. Even the ledger in n installed by the plaintiffs on the s ed by DW1/appellant/defendant No -sharer in the joint khewat but nterfere in the admitted exclusive f the suit property illegally and forc In holding as above, I find gment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour authority to take the law in their edly illegal construction on their l Corporation to take action, if been forcefully pointed out by hat the plaintiffs cannot be be demolished or obstructions “except in due course of law”. endant No.1 has no right, title or as noted above the defendant imself admitted that the land laintiffs; that the plaintiffs are in roperty be co-sharers; and that eir possession against illegal and r in respect of the electricity he suit property (Ex.PW4/A) was t No.1. No doubt the defendant ut that would not give him the usive settled possession of the forcibly “except in due course of find support from a three-Judge Court rendered in case of “Rame 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Gowda (D) by Finder Doc ID 23. Court in “A. S Doc ID # 1805 fil ) by Lrs. Vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu c ID # 65812, wherein it has been he “B. Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sec Trespasser - Injunction against tr trespasser in settled possession person claiming injunction to pro He is required only to prove without any concealment to the possession was invaded or thre remains and have to be kept op regular suit.” Another three-Judge Benc A. Subramanian & Another Vs. R. 805417, held as under:- “Permanent injunction - Even possession of property can obtain Permanent injunction - Suit for p filed without seeking a prayer for Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sections Permanent injunction restraining peaceful possession and enjoym property - Appeal by defendants plaintiff claimed right to suit pro which is invalid as not executed b by heirs of 'D' - Held, even tresp possession of property can obta rightly observed that plaint show anything about title dispute obvio idu (D) by Lrs. & Another” Law n held that:- , Section 36 - Question of title - nst true owner and in favour of ion - It is not necessary for the prove his title to the suit land - ve his lawful long possession o the true owner and that his threatened - Question of title pt open to be adjudicated in a Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme . R. Pannerselvam” Law Finder ven trespasser in established tain injunction. for permanent injunction can be r for declaration. tions 6 and 38 Decree of suit for ining defendant from disturbing njoyment of plaintiff over suit dants - Plea of defendants that t property on basis of sale deed ted by proper power of attorney trespasser, who is in established obtain injunction - High Court shows that plaintiff not narrated obviously because of fact that in 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo 24. Kumar” Law F 25. the ld. Courts exclusive poss Jamabandi fo examination th measuring 14 in settled excl are entitled dispossession partition of th previous litigation, defendant faile court rightly observed that princip for bare permanent injunction w declaration improper and not ap of permanent injunction upheld. This Court in “Smt. Gee aw Finder Doc ID # 68017, has held “Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Orde Easements Act, 1882, Section 63 Even trespasser having establish cannot be dispossessed forcibly b can recover possession only by du unauthorised occupant - Entitle injunction restraining defendant possession - Held, ad interim inju effect plaintiffs not to be disposs except in due course of law.” In face of the above note urts below correctly held that as t possession of suit property as per t i for the year 2006-07; and DW on that Bapu Kumbh Dass is owner 14 Marlas is in possession of the Pl exclusive possession of suit propert ed to protect their possession sion; thus, the remedy available of the joint suit land. The report o t failed to obtain any relief - High rinciple that plaintiff cannot seek on without seeking a prayer for t applicable - Therefore, decree ld.” Geeta and Another Vs. Ashok eld that:- Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Indian n 63 - Scope and applicability - ablished possession of property ibly by true owner - True owner by due process of law even from ntitled to issue of ad interim dant from interfering with their injunction granted only to the spossessed from land in dispute oted factual and legal position, as the Plaintiffs are recorded in per the revenue records, that is, DW1 has admitted in cross- ner of suit property and the land e Plaintiff; and that Plaintiffs are perty being co-sharers and they on against illegal and forcible ble with Defendant is to seek rt of Local Commissioner is not 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document relevant as th against illegal Court dismisse and conseque interfering in f from suit prop course of law. 26. reasoned judg above, presen 27. 24.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo s the case is not of removal of enc egal and forcible dispossession by issed the Appeal vide Judgment a quently restrained the Appellant in functioning of Plaintiff Committe property or demolishing constructio law. I find no ground is made judgments and decrees of the ld. C sent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No encroachment rather injunction n by Defendants. Ld. Appellate nt and decree dated 06.08.2022 ant from illegally and forcefully ittee, dispossessing the Plaintiff uction of Plaintiff, except in due ade out to interfere in the well- ld. Courts below. In view of the if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 16 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document