As per the facts of the case, the present respondent had filed a civil suit for possession of land by demolition of the structure put up on the land and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant from interfering on the disputed land.
The suit was decreed holding the present respondent as the owner of the encroached land and directing that the same be handed over to the respondent after demolition of the structures put up on the land.
Challenging the same, the appellant moved the first appellate court, which confirmed the findings on ownership and the question of encroachment.
However, the appellate court modified the judgment and decree holding that the respondent was not entitled to recovery possession of land after demolition of the structures put up there based on the principles of acquiescence.
Consequently, the respondent was found entitled to a decree of compensation at the market value prevalent at the time of filing of the suit and the compensation was assessed at ₹5,500.
However, the respondent moved a second appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging the modification of the judgment by appellate court.
The High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and the judgment and decree of the trial court was restored, which allowed for demolition and handing over of the possession of the encroached land to the respondent.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the apex court.
Source: Barandbench
