2026:HHC:12255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 480 of 2024

Reserved on: 07.04.2026

Date of decision : 29.04.2026.

Lachhmi Ram ...Petitioner.

Versus

Roop Ram ...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the petitioner : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Nand Lal Chauhan, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge:

The present petition arises out of the judgment, as

passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated

14.05.2024, whereby the appeal, as preferred by the present

petitioner, was partly allowed and both the parties were

directed to maintain status quo qua the nature, possession and

construction over the suit land/property comprised in Khasra

No. 436, measuring 00-01-62 hectares (Gair Mumkin Abadi),

situated at Hadbast No.66, Mohal Manghech, Mauza

Manghech, Tehsil and District Shimla, H. P., till the final

disposal of the suit.

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

-2-

2. The facts of the case are that t he

plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory

injunction, restraining the defendant from raising construction

or changing the nature of the suit land, comprised in khewat

khatauni No. 16/16, khasra No. 436, measuring 00-01-62

hectares, situated at Village Manghech, Mauja Manghech,

Tehsil and District Shimla, till the suit land is not partitioned

by metes and bounds.

3. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is co-

sharer/joint owner in possession over the suit property and the

share of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue record as per

Jamabandi for the year 2012-13.

4. It is averred that the plaintiff and defendant had

raised construction of house in the year 1975. The said house

was constructed over khasra No. 436, which is recorded in

Mauza Manghech. It is further averred that the defendant had

recently started demolishing his portion of the house, situated

over the suit property/land. Though, a request was made to

the defendant not to demolish his portion of the house or not to

cause any danger or damage to the portion of the house of the

plaintiff, but the defendant did not adhere to the request of the

plaintiff and demolished the portion of the house of the

plaintiff.

-3-

5. It was further averred that the defendant is trying to

permanently change the nature of the suit land against the

detriment to the rights of the plaintiff, therefore, the

plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory

injunction, restraining the defendant, his agents, servants,

contractors or any other persons acting for or under his

direction or supervision from changing the nature of the suit

land.

6. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 was also filed by the plaintiff and by means of

the said application, it was prayed that the defendant be

restrained from raising construction or changing the nature of

the suit land.

7. The suit, as preferred by the plaintiff, was contested

by the defendant by filing detailed written statement. It was

averred in the written statement that the plaintiff has not

approached the Court with clean hands. It was submitted that

both the co-owners are in exclusive possessi on of their

respective shares according to family settlement/arrangement,

taken place amongst their ancestors and also recorded in the

revenue record after settlement operation took place in the year

1999-2000, that too by the consent of the respective parties.

The said fact was recorded in the revenue record by the officials

-4-

of the Settlement Department and the parties to the suit had

declared by giving their respective statements about the family

arrangement taken place between them and a particular parcel

of the land (khasra) in their possession according to factual

possession/family arrangement at spot in the revenue record.

The revenue record remained unchallenged and presumption of

truth is attached to the said revenue record. It was further

averred in the written statement that the ancestral house of the

parties was constructed over Abadi Deh, which is double

storeyed house, having separate kitchen at a distance of one-

two meters of the said house. As per family arrangement, the

predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff allowed the predecessor-

in-interest of the defendant to construct a separate house over

khasra No. 436 in the year 1976-77, which was in exclusive

ownership and possession of the defendant. The plaintiff has

not filed any plan of the house depicting the true facts before

the Court. It has been further submitted that the construction

of the house is virtually on the same land over which it was

standing and there is no new construction over new site, rather

the construction is over the old site, which fact has been

admitted by the plaintiff while filing the suit.

8. It is stated that the major portion of the house

belonging to the defendant was constructed over khasra No s.

-5-

434 and 435 and only a meager portion of the same was part of

khasra No. 436. Most of the land belonging to khasra No. 436

was in the shape of courtyard and part of the open land of the

house. The house is being constructed over khasra Nos. 434

and 435 and the plaintiff is a stranger to the same. It was

submitted that the defendant is residing in a very small room at

present and is unable to live in a comfortable manner.

9. It is submitted that the defendant and his family

members are forced to use a washroom even of other

inhabitants of the village and facing extreme hardship. The

defendant is forced to live in a canopy for the last about one

and half years. It was submitted that reconstruction of the

house on old place/spot/land does not tantamount for

grabbing of the land or occupying any best/valuable portion of

the suit land as its nature is not being changed, rather the

construction of the land is being done on the very same land in

a new manner. The defendant has further stated that not only

the plaintiff but other co-owners have also constructed their

new houses during the last 30-40 years over the land which

was in their exclusive possession and nobody has ever raised

any objection qua the same. The plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate that the land over which the house is being

constructed is best and valuable portion, as compared to the

-6-

other lands situated in the village. The area of khasra No. 436

is measuring about four biswas, however, the parties to the

suit are having land in the village and the defendant is having

share of about 13 bighas in the said khata. Therefore, the

defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit, as filed by the

plaintiff.

10. The defendant also filed reply to the application filed

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. It is submitted that

the application has been filed without any merit and substance

as such, it was prayed that the application may be dismissed.

11. The learned trial Court vide its order dated

20.02.2024 allowed the application, as filed by the plaintiff/

respondent under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC

and the petitioner/defendant was directed to maintain quo qua

nature, possession and construction over the suit land

comprised in khasra No. 436, measuring 00 -01-62 hectares,

situated in Muhal Manghech, Post Office Ghanati, Tehsil and

District Shimla, till the final disposal of the suit.

12. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant preferred an

appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla on

02.03.2024. The learned First Appellate Court vide its

judgment dated 14.05.2024 partly allowed the appeal, directing

both the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession

-7-

and construction over the suit land, during the pendency of the

suit.

13. Still feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached

this Court by filing petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the impugned orders, as passed by the learned

Courts below are erroneous and are liable to be quashed and

set aside. He submits that the plaintiff has chosen to file the

suit only qua one khasra number i.e. khasra No. 436, whereas

the total land is more than 94 bighas. He submitted that he

has raised construction over khasra Nos. 434 and 435 and only

a meager portion of the said construction is being raised over

khasra No. 436, which is not more than 15 square meters.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant further submits

that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean

hands since the plaintiff along with other co-shares had raised

construction over the entire joint land and by filing the suit

only qua khasra No. 436, the intention of the plaintiff can be

gathered. He submits that since the total joint land is more

than 94 bighas, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff in

case the defendant is permitted to raise construction on a very

small portion of khasra No. 436 since he is raising the

-8-

construction over khasra Nos. 434 and 435 and majority of the

construction is on the said khasra numbers.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent contended that the land is joint between the parties

and therefore, no co-sharers can be permitted to raise

construction without partition of the land by m etes and

bounds. He further submitted that the learned Courts below

have rightly passed the impugned orders and do not call for any

interference.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have also gone through the record of the case file.

17. The case as projected by the plaintiff/respondent is

that over the joint land i.e. khasra No. 436, plaintiff and

defendant had raised construction of house in the year 1975

and the defendant has demolished the portion of the house

forcefully on 16.12.2023 and started raising construction by

getting the best and valuable portion of the suit land. It is the

case of the plaintiff that since as per revenue record, the suit

land is joint between the parties, therefore, till the time the suit

land is partitioned, the defendant cannot be permitted to raise

the construction.

18. Perusal of revenue record reveals that khasra No.

436 is owned by different co-sharers but the same has been

-9-

shown to be in exclusive possession of the defendant and

classification of the said khasra is being shown as Gair Mumkin

Abadi. It is the case of the defendant that on the basis of family

partition, the parties are residing separately and the said fact

was incorporated in the settlement and all the stake holders

had made the statement qua that effect and it is only thereafter

that khasra No. 436 is being shown in possession of the

present defendant exclusively.

19. The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement

that the entire joint land including the suit land is more than

94 bighas and being owned and possessed by different co -

sharers. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant that by

picking one khasra number and excluding the entire joint land,

the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and has not

disclosed the better particulars with respect to the fact that the

plaintiff along with other co-sharers has raised construction

over the joint land. It is the case of the defendant that he has

raised construction over khasra Nos. 434 and 435 being

exclusively possessed by him and majority of the construction

is being raised on the said khasra numbers.

20. During the course of the argument, it is pleaded by

the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that he shall

be utilizing a very meager portion of khasra No. 436 i.e. 15

-10-

square meters which is within the share of the defendant. He

further submits that they are facing hardship since they do not

have the house to live and they are forced to even use the

washroom of other villager.

21. The principle of seeking injunction against the co-

sharers has been well defined by this Court in Ashok Kapoor

vs. Murtu Devi 2016 (1) Shimla Law Cases 207 , wherein it

has been held that a co-sharer cannot be restrained from

raising construction on the joint land on the ground that he

has no right to raise construction on the joint land. After an

exhaustive review of the case law, it was held as under:-

“46. On consideration of the various judicial pronouncements

and on the basis of the dominant view taken in these decisions

on the rights and liabilities of the co-sharers and their rights to

raise construction to the exclusion of others, the following

principles can conveniently be laid down:-

(i) A co-owner is not entitled to an injunction

restraining another co-owner from exceeding his

rights in the common property absolutely and

simply because he is a co- owner unless any act

of the person in possession of the property

amounts to ouster prejudicial or adverse to the

interest of the co-owner out of possession.

(ii) Mere making of construction or improvement of,

in, the common property does not amount to

ouster.

(iii) If by the act of the coowner in possession the

value or utility of the property is diminished, then

a co-owner out of possession can certainly seek

-11-

an injunction to prevent the diminution of the

value and utility of the property.

(iv) If the acts of the co-owner in possession are

detrimental to the interest of other co- owners, a

coowner out of possession can seek an injunction

to prevent such an act, which is detrimental to his

interest.

(v) Before an injunction is issued, the plaintiff has to

establish that he would sustain, by the act he

complains of some injury, which materially would

affect his position or his enjoyment, or an

accustomed user of the joint property would be

inconvenienced or interfered with.

(vi) the question as to what relief should be granted

is left to the discretion of the Court in the

attending circumstances on the balance of

convenience and the exercise of its discretion the

Court will be guided by consideration of justice,

equity and good conscience.”

22. The present settled principle of law is that a co-

owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-

owner from exceeding his rights in the common property

absolutely and simply because he is a co-owner unless any act

of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster,

prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of

possession. Mere making of construction or improvement in

the common property does not amount to ouster, rather, if any

act of the co-owner in possession the value or utility of the

property is diminished, then a co-owner out of possession can

-12-

certainly seek an injunction to prevent the diminution of the

value and utility of the property. The acts of the co-owner in

possession and a co-owner out of possession can seek an

injunction to prevent such an act which is detrimental to his

interest. Therefore, a co-sharer cannot be restrained from

raising construction over the joint land unless it is shown that

such an act would constitute prejudice and mere raising of

construction does not amount to any prejudice as has been

held by this Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. Sheetal & others

2021 (1) Shimla Law Cases 377.

23. To the similar extent, this Court has laid down the

law in detail wherein, parties are co-owners and the plaintiff

claim himself to be a joint owner but has raised the

construction over the suit land and seeks injunction against

the respondent without disclosing this fact. The injunction

being an equitable relief, the person seeking an injunction must

come with clean hands. The well known mechanism that

applies in such a matter is that person who seeks equity, must

do equity. In the present case also, it is the specific case of the

petitioner/defendant that the plaintiff along with other co-

sharers has admittedly raised the construction on the entire

joint land, therefore, now it does not lie in the mouth of the

-13-

plaintiff that since the land is joint, the defendant should be

restrained from raising construction.

24. This Court in Smt. Kalawati vs. Netar Singh AIR

2016 HP 85 has held as under:-

“10. It would be evident from the decision, the mere fact that

the parties are coowners and joint owners etc. is not the sole

criterion for granting or refusing the injunction, the conduct of

the parties too plays an important role and in such like cases,

the plaintiff conduct has to be free from blame so as to enable

the court to conclude that the plaintiff has approached the

Court with clean hands. But here is a case where the petitioner

though claims herself to be a joint owner with the respondents

after having already raised construction over the suit land

seeks an injunction against the respondents without even

disclosing this fact.”

25. To the similar extent, in Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh

Kumar 2022 (2) Shimla Law Cases 1083, this Court has held

as under:-

“5(a) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had already raised

construction over the suit land alleged by him to be the joint

land of the parties along with other cosharers. This fact was

not disclosed by the plaintiff in the manner it ought to have

been stated in the plaint. The plaintiff in a round about manner

averred that the defendant was trying to block the air and light

of the house of the plaintiff existing over the suit land. Prima

facie observation of both the learned courts below that the

plaintiff had himself raised construction on the best and most

valuable portion of the suit land also assumes significance. It is

well settled that when a person seeks equity, he must come

with clean hands.

-14-

5(b) It is admitted fact that Sh. Kartar Chand brother of the

petitioner/plaintiff and one of the co-sharer had also raised

construction over the suit land in the year 2010. It is not the

case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he had objected to the

construction work done by his brother over the suit land or that

the plaintiff had instituted any civil suit for restraining his

brother from raising construction over the suit land. It is

apparent that the petitioner/plaintiff has selectively chosen the

respondent/defendant for filing the suit for injunction. At this

stage, it will be relevant to notice the following references:-

In (2010) 3 Shimla L.C. 2 05, titled Payar Singh Vs.

Narayan Dass and others , the respondents pleaded

themselves to be in settled separate possession of joint land in

family partition over which they were raising construction. They

also took up a stand that the petitioner had also constructed

his house over the land in his possession. The Court upheld the

contentions of the respondents. The following observations

made in the judgment are material :

“12. The respondents in the written statement have

specifically pleaded that parties are in separate

possession under the family arrangement. The petitioner

has also constructed his house on the joint land. It is not

the stand of the petitioner that respondents are raising

construction in an area which is more than their share.

The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has

constructed his house on a better portion of the land.

The under-construction house of the respondents is

away from National Highway 21 whereas the house of

the petitioner abuts N. H.21. The respondents have

placed on record on the file of revision photographs

construction of an under- construction house of the

respondents. The photographs indicate the sufficient gap

between the already constructed house of the petitioner

and the under-construction house of the respondents

over which even a slab has been placed. It is the case of

the respondents in the written statement that they are in

-15-

separate possession of the land in the family

arrangement. This fact has not been denied by filing

replication. The respondents are claiming possession

over the suit land under family arrangement i.e. with the

consent of the petitioner over which they are raising

construction. The respondents have thus established a

prima facie case, balance of convenience, and

irreparable loss in their favour. In these circumstances,

no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. In

revision, the scope is limited as held in The Managing

Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Balanagar, Hyderabad and another Vs. Ajit Prasad

Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan

Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973

SC 76. The suit is for permanent prohibitory and

mandatory injunction. The rights of the parties will be

decided in the suit. It has not been established that the

view taken by the learned District Judge does not

emerge from the material on record.”

xxxxxxxxx

In a judgment dated 03.09.2021, delivered in

CMPMO No. 555 of 2018, Ajay Kumar Vs. Ishwar

Dutt, it was held that when a co-sharer himself raises a

construction over the joint land when a cosharer does

not object to the raising of construction over the joint

land by some other co-owners, then, he cannot seek to

restrain one specific co-owner from raising construction

over part of the suit land, more so, when the

construction being raised by that particular co-owner is

over a portion, which, as per the revenue record, is in his

possession along with others and when the plaintiff has

not been shown in possession of this specific portion of

land.

Placing reliance upon various authorities, defendants in

CMPMO No. 77 of 2021, titled Smt. Vyasa Devi Vs.

Harish Kumar were permitted to undertake

-16-

construction inter-alia on the ground that the plaintiff

had also carried out construction on the joint land.

Material observations made by the Court on facts are as

under:-

“10. The facts involved in the case have been

narrated by me hereinabove and the same are

not being repeated for the sake of brevity. It is not

in dispute that the parties are co- sharers of the

suit land but the petitioners herein are recorded

to be in possession of the portion of the suit land

in issue along with other cosharers. It is further

not in dispute that the respondents herein are not

recorded to be in possession of the suit land. It is

also not in dispute that the respondents herein

have also carried out construction activities by

raising constructions over the joint land, as is

evident from the record. In these circumstances,

this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioners herein, who besides being the

coowners of the suit land are also recorded to be

in possession thereof, cannot be estopped from

raising construction pending the adjudication of

the civil suit. It is settled law that injunction

cannot be granted against a co-sharer and further

as the respondents herein themselves have

constructed their houses over the joint suit land,

in these circumstances, they cannot be permitted

to restrain other co -sharers, i.e. present

petitioners, from doing so. The construction,

which is being carried out by the petitioners,

however obviously shall be subject to the final

adjudication of the suit as also partition

proceedings, if any, and if the area upon which

construction being carried out by the present

petitioners ultimately falls in the share of the

plaintiffs in partition proceedings, then, of course,

-17-

consequences will ensue. However, this does not

mean that till the suit land is partitioned, the

petitioners herein should be restrained from

raising construction over the parcel of the suit

land in their possession.”

CMPMO No.522/2017, decided on 29.11.2018 titled

Chanchal Kumar Vs. Prem Parkash & Anr . was a

case where the plaintiff was one of the co-sharers over

the suit land. He raised construction and filed suit for a

prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents from

raising construction on the vacant portion of land. The

Court held that:-

“…..Once, the plaintiff himself raised construction

over one portion of the land, it is not understood,

how he could raise an objection, if any, qua the

construction on the other portion of land, by the

defendants, who are admittedly co-owners of the

suit land to the extent of one-half share. Needless

to say, the applicant, while seeking relief of

injunction is required to show that he/she has a

prima facie case in his/her favour and balance of

convenience also lies in his/her favour, but, in the

instant case, aforesaid basic

ingredients/conditions are totally missing, rather,

very conduct of the plaintiff suggests that he

wants to take advantage of the situation.”

26. In (2010) 3 Shimla L.C. 205, titled Payar Singh

Vs. Narayan Dass and others , the respondents pleaded

themselves to be in settled separate possession of joint land in

family partition, over which they were raising construction.

They also took up a stand that the petitioner had also

constructed his house over the land in his possession. The

-18-

Court upheld the contentions of the respondents. The

observations made in the judgment are as under:-

“12. The respondents in the written statement have specifically

pleaded that parties are in separate possession under the

family arrangement. The petitioner has also constructed his

house on the joint land. It is not the stand of the petitioner that

respondents are raising construction in an area which is more

than their share. The case of the respondents is that the

petitioner has constructed his house on a better portion of the

land. The under-construction house of the respondents is away

from National Highway 21 whereas the house of the petitioner

abuts N. H.21. The respondents have placed on record on the

file of revision photographs construction of an under -

construction house of the respondents. The photographs

indicate the sufficient gap between the already constructed

house of the petitioner and the under-construction house of the

respondents over which even a slab has been placed. It is the

case of the respondents in the written statement that they are

in separate possession of the land in the family arrangement.

This fact has not been denied by filing replication. Th e

respondents are claiming possession over the suit land under

family arrangement i.e. with the consent of the petitioner over

which they are raising construction. The respondents have thus

established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and

irreparable loss in their favour. In these circumstances, no fault

can be found with the impugned judgment. In revision, the

scope is limited as held in The Managing Director (MIG)

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and

another Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and

Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR

1973 SC 76. The suit is for permanent prohibitory and

mandatory injunction. The rights of the parties will be decided

in the suit. It has not been established that the view taken by

the learned District Judge does not emerge from the material on

record.”

-19-

27. Similar legal proposition has been reiterated in Jai

Singh vs. Rajeev Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 162 , wherein it

was observed as under:-

“19. The fact that in past also different coowners including the

parties to suit have raised construction also weakens the case

of plaintiffs. When plaintiffs had no objection when the co-

owners had raised construction on different parts of the joint

land in the same khata, they mu st come out with special

reasons to raise objections against construction being raised by

the defendant. Another fact, which cannot be ignored is that

there is another structure on suit land being used as

“Panchayat Ghar.” At the time of its construction again there

was no objection. Admittedly, no other co-owners have raised

any objection to the construction being raised by the defendant.

The conduct of plaintiffs smacks of some ulterior purpose than

the assertion of any legal right.”

28. It is well settled principle of law that a co-sharer

cannot seek injunction against other co-sharers from exceeding

his rights in the common property absolutely and simply

because he is a co- owner unless any act of the person in

possession of the property amounts to ouster, prejudicial or

adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of possession

exceeding his right. The above mentioned exposition of law has

laid down the principle that when an injunction can be granted

in such like cases.

29. In the present case, the revenue record carries the

presumption of truth. Though the land is being shown to be

-20-

joint amongst the parties, however, suit land is in the exclusive

possession of the defendant. But leaving apart this fact, it has

been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the majority of the construction is being raised over khasra

Nos. 434 and 435 and only a meager construction of

approximately 15 square meters is being constructed over

khasra No. 436 i.e. the suit land. It has been stated by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that over this khasra number,

his share is approximately two biswas. From the pleadings, it

reveals that it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant

is exceeding his share by raising construction. Further, the

plaintiff has failed to plead and prove that in case the

construction is raised by defendant that shall amount to ouster

from the suit land. It is not the case of the plaintiff that in case

the defendant is allowed to raise construction then same shall

diminish the value of the suit land. Merely on the ground that

the suit land is joint amongst the parties, the defendant cannot

be injuncted, in view of the observations as made hereinabove.

30. The plaintiff has failed to make out a case for grant

of injunction, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and

irreparable loss. The revenue record shows that the defendant

is in exclusive possession of khasra No. 436 and the majority of

the construction is being raised over khasra Nos. 434 and 435,

-21-

which are admittedly in owner ship and possession of the

defendant. Because of the fact that only a meager portion of

the construction came to be raised over khasra No. 436 that too

within the share of the defendant, no injunction order can be

passed for raising construction, as a result of which, it is the

defendant, who shall suffer huge and irreparable loss.

31. The defendant has categorically taken a stand in

para-5 of the written statement that it is not only the plaintiff

but other co-owners, who have raised constructions of their

new houses during the last 30-40 years over the joint land,

which was in their exclusive possession and nobody has ever

raised any objection qua the same. The plaintiff did not file any

suit against the other co-sharers while such construction was

being raised and it is the case of the defendant that only the

defendant has been chosen by instituting the present suit

injuncting him from raising the construction. It is the case of

the defendant that in order to pressurize him so that he may

not raise construction over khasra Nos. 434 and 435, the

present suit has been instituted. In the replication, there is no

specific denial to para-5 of the written statement, which also

draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff. Therefore,

merely for the reason that the land is joint amongst the parties,

it does not give any right to the plaintiff to injunct the

-22-

defendant from raising construction that too on a very small

portion of the said khasra number.

32. The learned courts below have not decided the

application of the plaintiff in accordance with law, as laid down

by this Court, as enumerated hereinabove, as a result of which,

the defendant has been able to make out a case for interference

in the present petition, which has been preferred under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

33. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and

the orders, as passed by the learned Courts below, are set aside

and the application, as filed by the plaintiff, is ordered to be

dismissed. It is made clear that the construction, if any, raised

over the suit land, shall not be raised by the defendant

exceeding his share in khasra No. 436.

34. Any expression of opinion made hereinabove shall

have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed

only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge

20

th April, 2026.

(kck)