S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 157/1982. Case: The Union of India Vs Chandra Shekhar. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 157/1982 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Salil Trivedi, Adv. and For Respondents: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | Arun Bhansali, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLI Rule 22; Sections 100, 80 |
| Judgement Date | September 29, 2014 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Arun Bhansali, J.
-
This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 22.05.1982 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirohi, whereby, judgment and decree dated 22.03.1978 passed by Munsif, Desuri has been upheld.
-
The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff-Daulat Singh (since deceased) filed a suit against the defendants-appellants seeking permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing him from the suit land; it was, inter alia, claimed in the plaint that the land in question was sold through a Patta granted by Gram Panchayat, Rani on 23.05.1958 though the plaintiff was in possession of the land since 1943 and had established a godown for storing coal; an agreement dated 07.01.1958 was executed among Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rani, plaintiff and officers of Western Railways, wherein, it was accepted that the land was of plaintiff's possession and was comprised in the Patta and all the rights between the parties were determined by the said agreement; on 01.08.1969 agent of the Railways informed plaintiff that defendant No. 3-Assistant Engineer, Western Railway has directed him to remove plaintiff's possession, which was resisted and whereafter he was threatened with dispossession; ultimately, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the plaintiffs peaceful possession.
-
The suit was resisted by the defendants-appellants and it was contended that vide agreement dated 07.01.1958 it was admitted that the land was in possession of the plaintiff, but the possession was vacated on 26.06.1968, however, the plaintiff again trespassed on the land, therefore, proceedings were initiated for eviction of plaintiff from the land in question, the title of the plaintiff and the validity of the Patta was questioned.
-
Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed nine issues; issue No. 4 which pertained to validity of Patta dated 23.05.1958 and the validity of notice under Section 80 CPC were decided in the terms that as the Patta was unregistered and unstamped, the same was inadmissible in evidence and could not even be used for collateral purposes and the notice issued by the plaintiff was valid; issue No. 6 which pertained to maintainability of the suit, in view of the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was decided against the appellants and issue No. 7 pertaining to sufficiency of Court fees was decided in favour of the defendants and plaintiff was required to pay the deficient Court fees, as such, the issue Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were preliminary in nature, were decided during the pendency of the suit.
-
On behalf of the plaintiff nine witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendants seven witnesses were examined.
-
After hearing the parties, the trial court by the impugned judgment decided issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 and after discussing the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was utilizing the land since beginning; agreement Exhibit-3 was executed among the plaintiff, Gram Panchayat and Railways, based on which, it was agreed that the plaintiff would not raise any construction upto 100 ft. from the Railway line and as plaintiff was in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit land since 1943, the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed; the submissions made by the Railways regarding competence of officers to execute Exhibit-3 was negated on the ground that the defendants in their written statement had themselves relied on the said agreement Exhibit-3; based on the above conclusions issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land; however, it was held that the plaintiff cannot raise any construction upto 100 ft. from the Railway line; the operative portion of the judgment dated 22.03.1978 passed by the trial court reads as under:-
-
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeal before the District Judge, Sirohi, who after hearing the parties and...
To continue reading
Request your trial