Mandi, District Kota v. Municipal Board, Through Its Chairman/ Executive Officer

Judgment

1. Municipal Board, Through Its Chairman/ Executive Officer, Ramganjmandi, Distt. Kota

2. Prem Chand Jain S/o Manak Chand Dhoopia Jain, Ramganjmandi, Distt. Kota ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. J. P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. with For Respondent(s) Ms. Yashika Vijayvargia, Adv. : Ms. Vandana Sharma, Dy.G.C. Mr. Bhawani Shanker, Adv. for Ms. Alok Chaturvedi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 02/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota (for short ‘the appellate court’) in civil regular appeal No.05/2008, whereby the appellate Court (2 of 4) [CSA-17/2014] while dismissing the appeal filed by the original plaintiff, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ramganjmandi, District Kota (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No. 57/1998 by which the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants mentioning therein that the father and uncle of the plaintiff had purchased a house from erstwhile owner-Phool Chand S/o Shri Gulab Chand vide registered sale deed dated 26.07.1955. About 7-8 years, thereafter the said property was partitioned between father and uncle of the original plaintiff. The father of the original plaintiff got share in the property marked EBCF including 4 ft.3” wide north side of lane. In the said property, two toilets on western corner were also constructed by the erstwhile owner in the year 1931. The father and uncle of the original plaintiff also purchased some open strip of land from the defendant No.1- Municipal Board. Defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1 wanted to take out a new gate towards the disputed lane. So, the permanent injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Both the defendants filed their written statements mentioning therein that disputed land belongs to the public lane. The plaintiff had no owner-ship regarding it. There has been consistent dispute in respect of the said land between the parties since 1967. Defendant No.1-Municipal Board has also granted permission to the defendant No.2 for taking out gate, ventilators (3 of 4) [CSA-17/2014] and windows etc. towards the disputed land. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k fookfnr xyh oknh ds LokfeRo ,oa vf/kiR; dh gS\ 2- vk;k izfroknh ua- 1 dks fookfnr xyh esa njoktk] f[kM+dh vkfn cuk;s tkus dh vuqefr nsus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\ 3- vk;k oknh izfroknh ua- 2 ds fo#) bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd oknh dh futh xyh gksus ds dkj.k izfroknh ua- 2 dks njoktk f[kM+dh vkfn j[kus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\ To prove his case, the plaintiff-Madanlal got himself examined as PW-1. To prove their case, the defendants got examined DW-1 Prem Chand and DW-2 Ramgopal, Executive Officer of the Board. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2008 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 01.02.2008, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. During the evidence, Municipal Board failed to prove that the disputed land is a public lane and the same is in its ownership. So, the judgments and decree passed by the courts below are required to be set-aside and the plaintiff may be held entitled to get permanent injunction against the defendants. So, the appeal filed (4 of 4) [CSA-17/2014] by the plaintiff deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the appellate court as well as the trial court rightly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no right over the disputed land and he had not submitted any title document(s) regarding the said lane. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed at the admission stage. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments and decree passed by the courts below. The trial court as well as the appellate court in their judgments gave cogent reasons in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff failed to produce any title document(s) regarding the disputed land. The Municipal Board in its evidence clearly mentioned that the disputed land belongs to it. So, in my considered opinion, no ground is made out to admit the second appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. So, the second appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/72