Neighbours’ Claim That Woman’s Entire Plot Was Built Over Justified Injunction, Himachal Pradesh HC Holds

The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction, asserting ownership and possession of the suit land and alleging that the defendants threatened to build on its vacant portion.

The defendants denied that any portion was vacant and relied on a demarcation, but did not produce its report.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding no proved overt act of interference; the First Appellate Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff’s possession was established and granting the injunction.

The defendants appealed to the High Court, where the appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law.

Under Rattan Dev v. Pasam Devi, non-appearance of a party may support an adverse inference, but its significance depends on the other oral and documentary evidence on record.

Under Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, a power-of-attorney holder may testify to acts and transactions within their knowledge, but not to matters exclusively within the principal’s personal knowledge.

Revenue entries carry a presumption of correctness.

A person in possession may seek an injunction against threatened interference; the court cited Lakshmamma v. M.P. Krishnappa, Shri Ram v. Rakesh Kumar and Atma Ram v. Onkar Singh on protection of possession and enjoyment.

Order VII Rule 3 CPC requires an identifiable description of immovable property; the court, relying on Ghisa Ram v. Sukhi Ram, held that a site plan is not required where the suit concerns an entire khasra number sufficiently identified in the record.

The plaintiff’s power-of-attorney holder testified to her ownership and possession, and the jamabandi corroborated that evidence; the defendants’ own evidence also acknowledged her ownership and construction on the land.

As the suit was based on the revenue record and the alleged threat was not a matter shown to be within the plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge, her non-appearance did not justify an adverse inference sufficient to defeat the claim.

The revenue entries showed that only part of the land was recorded as a cowshed, contrary to the defendants’ assertion that the whole land was constructed upon.

The defendants did not produce the demarcation report, and the court found that their denial of any vacant portion restricted the plaintiff’s possession and supported her apprehension of interference.

Because the suit concerned the whole khasra number, the absence of a site plan identifying the vacant portion did not prevent the grant of relief.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the First Appellate Court’s injunction decree undisturbed.