RAJ RANI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KAITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three civil revision petitions are being decided together as these have common facts and circumstances and are inter -connected. However, for convenience and clarity, facts are being taken from Civil Revision Petition No.6350 of 2014.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has not made compliance of order dated 18.9.2014 of this Court and urges that no such record is readily available. It is claimed that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is valid and legal and it is to be proved that proprietors of the village having their share in Khasra No.459 having sold the same, make the title of the petitioner -plaintiff clear and clean. Evidence in this respect is sought to be produced from the revenue record as well as from the municipal record.

(3.) AT the stage of production of rebuttal evidence by the plaintiff, petitioner herein, and for arguments i.e. when the suit was being concluded, an application for leading additional evidence was filed by the plaintiff for proving that notwithstanding Khasra No.459 having been recorded as 'pond' in the revenue record, it is within the municipal limits, Kaithal and there is human habitation thereon.