Suit House Case Study

08. The plaintiffs claimed that they are lawful owners and possessors of the suit houses. Bhaskar (PW No.01) in his affidavit of examination-in-chief categorically stated that he and other plaintiffs have purchased the suit houses from their respective predecessor in title under the registered sale-deeds. Thereafter, they have obtained the building construction permission from defendant no. 04 and raised construction of the suit houses. The plaintiffs in support of the above oral evidence placed on the record the certified copies of the tax assessment list (Exh.No.20 to 24). On perusal of the certified copies of the tax assessment list (Exh.No.20 to 24), it is clearly seen that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit houses. The oral
The plaintiffs further claimed that the suit way is located towards the eastern side of the suit houses. According to the plaintiffs, previously the suit way was known as the district way, but in the year 1999-2000, it is declared as state way. Bhaskar (PW No.01) in his evidence clearly stated that the width of the said way is 60 feet. The defendants have already fixed boundaries in front of the suit houses and raised construction of the drainage line. However, after declaring the suit way as state way, the defendants under the grab of encroachment removing campaign carried out measurement of the suit way. In the said measurement, they have shown some portion of the suit houses as encroachment. He further stated that the defendants under the grab of encroachment removing campaign illegally trying to remove the front portion of the suit
It has clearly come on the record that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit houses. It has also come on the record that the defendants are illegally trying to remove the front portion of the suit houses under the grab of the encroachment removing campaign. The above act of the defendants clearly shows that they are trying to invade the rights of the plaintiffs. In case, the defendants succeeded to remove the front portion of the suit houses, then certainly the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. In the above circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction, as prayed. The plaintiffs have issued a legal notice to the defendants. However, the defendants in spite of service of the said legal notice did not reply. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit under compelling circumstances. In such background, the plaintiffs are also entitled to costs of the suit from the defendants. In view of my above discussion, I answered point no.03 in the affirmative and in reply to point no. 04, pass the following