Pooran Mal v. Surendra Kumar & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for t he plaint iff- appellant . ( 2) This is plaint iff- appellant 's second appeal challenging t he j udgm ent and decree dat ed 13.1.2009 passed by t he Addl. Dist t . Judge ( Fast Track) No.2, Sikar Cam p Srim adhopur in Appeal No.67/ 2001 whereby t he j udgm ent and decree dat ed 9.9.1999 passed by t he Civil Judge ( Jr.Division) , Sikar in Civil Suit No.1/ 1994 has been affirm ed. ( 3) The fact s of t he case are t hat a civil suit for declarat ion and perm anent inj unct ion was originally filed by t he plaint iffs Banwari Lal and Pooran Mal wit h t he averm ent t hat on 5.9.1940, t heir fat her Bachhu Ram was allot t ed a plot by t he Sikar St at e and t he m easurem ent of t he land so allot t ed t o Bacchu Ram was 51.4' in East t o West and 23.10' in Nort h t o Sout h. Along wit h t his piece of land, a separat e sm all piece of land m easuring 8' in widt h and 51.4' in lengt h was also given t o Bacchu Ram upon which t he plaint iff const ruct ed a Chabut ara which was sit uat ed on t he sout hern side of t he plot and in m easurem ent , it was 8' wide spreadidng from Nort h t o Sout h and from East t o West it was 51.4'. I t was also m ent ioned 2 in t he plaint t hat adj oining areas of t he boundaries on t he Nort hern side of t he plot , t here was sit uat ed a house of Arj un Vaidh, on west ern side and sout hern side t here was sit uat ed a public way and in east ern side of t he plot , t here was sit uat ed a Bada belonging t o one Raghunat h. The disput e had arisen when t he plaint iff const ruct ed Chabut ara over t he adj oining land of 8' x 51.4'. The t hen Village Panchayat refused t he perm ission t o m ake Chabut ra over t he land and against which t he plaint iff filed an appeal before t he Dist rict Collect or, Sikar who aft er m aking physical inspect ion of t he sit e passed order t o give Pat t a of t his land t o t he plaint iffs. The disput e is also relat ed t o half port ion of t his Chabut ara m easuring 8' x 25' and t he respondent s claim ed t his piece of land as t heir propert y and according t o t he defendant s t he village Panchayat and t hereaft er t he Nagar Palika on an applicat ion of defendant s for allot m ent of t is land t o defendant allot t ed t he land by way of issuing Pat t a in favour of t he defendant s. ( 4) The case of t he defendant s is t hat t he plaint iff Banwari Lal gave an applicat ion for allot m ent of Chabut ara sit uat ed t owards Sout h- east ern side t o Collect or who vide his order dat ed 5.1.1973 direct ed t o issue t he Pat t a of t he sam e. The defendant s furt her st at ed in t heir writ t en st at em ent t hat t he Chabut ara sit uat ed t owards t he East ern- Sout hern side belongs t o t hem and t he plaint iffs have m isled t he court and furt her t he Gram Panchayat Reengus vide it s Resolut ion dat ed 5.12.1974 issued Pat t a of 8' x 25' in favour of t hem . ( 5) The t rial court on t he basis of t he pleadings of t he part ies, fram ed t he following t hree issues: ( 1) आया वाद पर७ के पैरा संख्या 1 मे विणत 8x25 फु ट 3 वादरय़स्त भूखण्ड वादीगण के कब्जे. अिधकार एवं स्वािमत्व का है ? - - - वादीगण ( 2) आया वादरय़स्त भूखण्ड के संबंध म(cid:7286) जारी िकया गया पटटा िदनांक 26.3.1972 कतैई गलत अवैध एवं शून्य है ? - - - वादीगण ( 2 ए) आया वादीगण र९ितवादी संख्या 1 से िववादरय़स्त भूखण्ड का पटटा रय़ुद के हक म(cid:7286) जारी कराने के अिधकारी है ? - - - - वादीगण ( 3) अनुतोष । ( 6) I n support of t heir case, t he plaint iffs exam ined PW- 1 Banwari Lal, PW- 2 Pokhar, PW- 3 Mohan, PW- 4 Surj aram , PW- 5 Kaluram and PW- 6 Rat an Lal and exhibit ed fift een docum ent s. The defendant s exam ined DW- 1 Surendra and DW- 2 Nanuram and exhibit ed copy of t he order passed by t he Collect or as Ex.A.1, applicat ion filed by Banwari Lal for grant of Pat t a Ex.A- 2 and t he Pat t a issued in his favour as Ex.A.3. One m ore docum ent Ex.8 was exhibit ed. ( 7) Aft er considering t he ent ire evidence, t he t rial court as well as t he appellat e court cam e t o t he conclusion t hat t he disput ed land m easuring 8'x25' has been allot t ed t o t he defendant by issuing t he Pat t a and t here is no illegalit y in t he said Pat t a, t herefor e, t he plaint iff is not having any t it le or possession over t he sam e. While discussing evidence, Ex.A- 2 applicat ion filed by Banwari Lal, t he court s below found t hat t he sit uat ion of t he land where t he Chabut ara has been const ruct ed is t owards Sout hern- East ern side whereas t he Chabut ara of t he respondent - defendant was t owards t he East ern- West ern side. Aft er considerat ion of t he evidence on record, bot h t he court s have given concurrent finding on I ssues No. 1,2 and 2A against t he plaint iff and in favour of t he defendant s. ( 8) I t is pert inent t o m ent ion here t hat Banwari Lal who filed applicat ion Ex.A.- 2 died during t he pendency of t he appeal and his legal represent at ives have been m ade proform a respondent 4 plaint iffs in t his appeal. ( 9) Subm ission of counsel for t he plaint iff- appellant is t hat t he findings on t he aforesaid I ssues No.1,2 and 2A are perverse. ( 10) I have heard learned counsel for t he appellant s and carefully gone t hrough t he appeal as well as record of t he case. ( 11) I find t hat bot h t he court s below, aft er considerat ion of evidence on record right ly decided I ssues No.1,2 and 2A against t he plaint iff and in favour of t he defendant s and t he said findings are concurrent findings of fact . ( 12) No subst ant ial quest ion of law is involved in t he appeal. The sam e is dism issed. ( Prem Shanker Asopa) J. All correct ions m ade in t he j udgm ent / order have been incorporat ed in t he j udgm ent / order being e- m ailed. Gopal Lal Sharm a Privat e Secr et ary