Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The claim of the plaintiff over the plaint property was on the basis of A2 exchange deed entered between the plaintiff on the one side and the defendants and another on the other side. Under A2 deed, in exchange of the property of the plaintiff, he was alloted two plots, one having an extent of 3.157 cents and the other 1.307 cents, was his case. 'B' schedule in that deed, the properties referred to above were exchanged in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of 'A' schedule under that deed to the counterparts, the defendants and another. A2 exchange deed was executed, according to the plaintiff, pursuant to mediation between the parties after a portion of the common pathway set apart in B1 partition deed, wherein the predecessor of the plaintiff (his mother) and also defendants 1 and 2 in the present suit were parties, was trespassed upon and constructions were put up in the trespassed area by the defendants. In B1 partition deed, the 'H' schedule, which was shown as plot No.10 in a plan attached thereto was allotted to the mother of the plaintiff and 'F' schedule shown as plot No.11 in the plan was alloted to defendants 1 and 2. A common pathway set apart under the partition deed adjoining plot No.10 alloted to the mother of the plaintiff was trespassed upon and construction over that area was effected by defendants 1 and 2. The disputes emanating therein were settled between the parties and A2 exchange deed was executed, by which, in lieu of the trespassed area shown as 'A' schedule in the deed, the defendants along with another exchanged two plots from plot No.11 on its east and west, one plot having an extent of 3 cents and 157 sq.links and the other plot 1 cent and 307 sq.links, both covered by 'B' schedule described under the exchange deed. Those plots exclusively enjoyed by the plaintiff, as pathways for access to the common road provided in B1 partition, is interfered with and his enjoyment is obstructed by the defendants, was the case of the plaintiff for the decree of injunction against them. Though the claim of the plaintiff for such decree was resisted on various grounds by the defendants even contending that the plan attached to B1 partition deed was incorrect, the lower appellate court has found such contentions are meritless and not available to the defendants in view of the dismissal of a previous suit filed by them impeaching A2 exchange deed, seeking to set it aside as invalid and not binding on them. As against the dismissal of such a suit challenging A2 exchange deed by the defendants, there was a further appeal at their instance, which too, had been dismissed for default. So much so, the parties are bound by A2 exchange deed, by which, the plaintiff in exchange of another property was given exclusive right over the 'B' schedule under that deed (the plaint schedule property) was the view taken by the lower appellate court to grant the decree applied for in the suit.