LOONKARAN Vs. DINESHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession and certain other ancillary reliefs in respect of a plot of land situated in the town of Merta.

(2.) ON 22-6-1956 the respondent-defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Dineshkumar and his father Kapurchand made an application to the Municipal Board, Merta for purchasing a plot of land which has been marked as GHNJ in the site-plan Ex. 1 filed with the plaint. ON this application the Municipal Board, Merta invited objections and ultimately directed that it may be put to auction. The highest bid received for the land was, however, inadequate, and, therefore, by its order dt. 13-9-1957 the Board directed that the plot GHRJ may be sold for Rs. 110/4/- to the respondents Dineshkumar and Kapurchand. This amount was accordingly deposited by Dineshkumar and Kapurchand on 16-10-1957, and a sale deed for this plot was executed by the Municipal Board in favour of these defendants on 30-10-1957. Meanwhile on 24-8 1957 the plaintiff Loon Karan had applied for purchasing another plot of land which has been shown as ABCDEF in the plan Ex. 1 and the order for sale of the same in favour of the plaintiff was passed on 28-9-1957. The plaintiff deposited the price of this plot on 8-10-1957 and accordingly a sale deed was executed in his favour for the plot ABCDEF on 26-10-1957. This sale deed has been marked Ex. 2. The plaintiff applied for construction on the plot ABcdef purchased by him to the Municipal Board, Merta whereupon an objection was preferred by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that a part of the plot ABcdef had already been sold to them by the Municipal Board, Merta by its order dated 13-8-1957, and it was further urged that the plot purchased by the plaintiff did not cover the portion marked AMNL shown in red colour in the plan. To put more precisely the contention of the defendants was that the portion AMNL was a part of the plot purchased by them and had not been sold to the plaintiff. In the alternative their case was that the disputed portion AMNL having been sold to them first could not have been sold again to the plaintiff. After a summary enquiry the Municipal Board in its order dated 12-4-1958 observed that the portion of the land marked AMNL had been by mistake sold to the plaintiff as well as to the defendants and this had given rise to the dispute between the parties. By a subsequent order dated 21-12 1958 the Board directed the plaintiff Loon Karan to leave the portion marked AMNL and to set the measurements of the land sold to him towards the south of the disputed portion of the land. He was also directed to submit his sale deed for correction.

(3.) NO other point was pressed by any of the parties.