BANSHIDHAR PARWAL Vs. VIJAY KUMAR ALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 29 -8 -2008, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) West Jaipur City, Jaipur, and judgment and decree dated 23 -2 -2010, passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the appellant has filed this second appeal before this Court.

(2.) IN a short compass, the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a civil suit against respondents defendants for declaration and mandatory injunction in relation to a Chabutara (a Platform) measuring 11.9 ft. X 9.9 ft., situated in front of shop No. A -11/1, Chandpole Anaj Mandi, Jaipur. According to the appellant, the said platform was not sold to the respondents. In fact, vide sale -deed dated 19 -9 -1992, only a shop A -11/1, having an area 29.61 sq. meter, was sold by the appellant to the respondents. However, the respondents have encroached upon the said platform by putting iron - bars and by keeping their articles/ goods on the platform. According to the appellant, the platform is owned by him. Therefore, he prayed that mandatory injunction be issued against respondents not to use the platform.

(3.) MR . Sudesh Bansal, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that learned courts below have overlooked the fact that according to map given by the Urban Improvement Trust, the platform was bought by the appellant in a auction sale. Moreover, the learned courts below have ignored the fact that the respondents have taken self -contradictory stand before the trial court. On the one hand, they had claimed that the platform was sold to them by the appellant, yet on the other hand, they claimed that the platform was part of government land. Lastly, since the appellant could not produce certain documents before the learned trial court, and the first appellate court, the appellant has moved and application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking those documents on record. According to learned Counsel, these documents clearly prove that the platform was sold by the Urban Improvement Trust to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant did not sell the platform to the respondents. Thus, the platform continued to be in the ownership of the appellant. Hence, the respondents were encroachers upon the platform.