### MANDATORY INJUNCTION DENIED WHERE RELEVANT REVENUE RECORDS CONTRADICT ALLEGATIONS OF RECENT ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AND ENCROACHMENT

The Appellant (plaintiff) is the recorded Sankramani Bhumidhar of land across Khasra Nos. 107, 108, 109, 118, and 121 in Village Gaindakhali No. 4

He filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that while he was away between August 15 and August 22, 2007, the defendants encroached upon his land, constructed a kitchen, and planted lemon trees

The Trial Court (Civil Judge, J.D., Tanakpur) decreed the suit in full, granting both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions

On appeal, the District Judge, Champawat, partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the prohibitory injunction but setting aside the mandatory injunction for removal of construction, finding the plaintiff's claims of recent encroachment unproven

The plaintiff approached the High Court in second appeal against the denial of the mandatory injunction

1. Whether the First Appellate Court committed an illegality in declining the relief of mandatory injunction to the plaintiff/appellant by misappreciating the evidence regarding unauthorized construction

The court applied the principle that a First Appellate Court, as the final court of fact and law, must reassess the evidence to determine if the trial court's findings are sustainable

It relied on the evidentiary value of revenue records (Khasra entries) over oral testimony to determine the status of possession and construction

The court also considered the principle of res judicata regarding the failure to file a separate appeal against the dismissal of cross-objections

The High Court scrutinized the First Appellate Court’s reasoning for reversing the Trial Court's decree of mandatory injunction. It noted that the First Appellate Court identified critical contradictions in the testimony of PW2, who claimed a kitchen and residence were established within a mere three-day window (Aug 19–22, 2007), which was deemed physically implausible

Furthermore, the First Appellate Court relied heavily on the Khasra entries of the relevant fasli year. These official revenue records for Khasra Nos. 108, 109, and 121 showed no mention of a newly constructed kitchen or encroachment, even after the plaintiff had amended his pleadings

The High Court observed that these documentary records directly contradicted the oral evidence of the plaintiff. Consequently, the High Court held that the First Appellate Court was justified in finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the factum of illegal construction during the specific period alleged

The Court held that the relief of mandatory injunction was rightly declined as the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged unauthorized occupation occurring in August 2007. The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court was affirmed