LAKHAN LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff having lost his cause in both the courts below has now come up before this court in second appeal.

(2.) A suit was filed by the plaintiff for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession ever a small piece of land shown by letters ABCD in the plaint map. The land is situated near the Civil Lines, Jhansi at the crossing of Civil court, Jhansi and the P.W.D. office. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased the land from one Rewa Shanker under sale-deed dated 10-4-1963 and has constructed a Tapra thereon and was running a tea stall therein. The P.W.D. sent a notice in 1964 directing the plaintiff to remove the constructions. The Municipal employees also came in July, 1964 to remove the constructions and directed him to remove the same latest by 31st July, 1967. Because of the threat, the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and asserted that the land did not belong to Rewa Shanker and it was part of the road side "patri"and vests in the defendant Municipal Board, that the plaintiff was given a licence to occupy 12 X 8 land in Oct., 1962 with the condition that he will vacate the land as and when required by the Board. The plaintiff paid licence fee upto 31-3-1963. He continued the occupation even thereafter and has encroached upon more land and now has in his possession an area of nearly 1000 sq. fts. The trial court held that the plaintiff had taken the land in question from the defendant as a licensee and was estopped from denying the defendants right. As regard the ownership said to have been acquired by the plaintiff under the sale-deed dated 10-4-1963, it was held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and the land belonged to the defendant. It was also held on consideration of the evidence on the record that the land in question was part of the public street being a road-side patri and vested in the defendant. On these finding the trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court also maintained those findings and has not accepted the appeal. The plaintiff has now come up before this court and has restated the matter on the same lines.