ISHWAR CHAND Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 29.11.2001 and 13.5.2003 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Kurukshetra (hereinafter described as 'the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra (referred to hereinafter as 'the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiff -appellant were dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant -respondent on the averments that he had purchased a plot measuring east - west 11 -1/4 feet & north -south 79.3 feet vide a registered sale deed dated 17.7.1970; that this plot was now bounded on east; west; north; and south by the properties of Naresh Kumar, Suresh Chand; Harvinder Singh; municipal drain, then kacha road, then pucca road and Arya High School, respectively; that the plot in question is shown in red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint; that he was in possession of the same since 1950 along with his brother; that they had constructed a room, store, latrine, courtyard etc. therein and also raised a wooden super structure over it about 13 -14 years back; that a stationery shop was being run by them from the premises; that a part thereof was also being used for residential purposes; that a paper -cutting machine was in existence in the wooden super structure since it was raised; that the respondent issued a notice dated 8.4.1988 to the appellant to remove the construction etc. from the site; that a reply to the same was given by him; that the respondent asked him to show the documents regarding ownership of the land in question vide notice dated 21.4.1988, failing which it was mentioned that the construction etc. would be removed; that he filed a reply to this notice as well and sent copies of the sale deed and site plan, upon which the Administrator of the respondent dropped the action on the notice; that after about 10 years, the Administrator of the respondent visited the site and orally directed the appellant to remove his super structure and other belongings within one hour, otherwise the same would be removed forcibly.

(3.) UPON notice, the respondent put in appearance and filed its written statement contesting the suit. It was pleaded that there was no dispute with the sale deed in favour of the appellant, but the vacant land which is situated near the road is owned by the respondent. It was further pleaded that the out of the said vacant land, some portion has been rented out to various tenants and prior to this, the land in question as well as the land which has been rented out was being used by the public. It was averred that the site plan attached with the plaint and the depiction of the property of the appellant were wrong and that the appellant wanted to grab the property of the respondent where a wooden khokha had been constructed by him illegally. It was pleaded that there was no pacca Nali on the spot.