PREM RAJ Vs. JETH MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the judgment and decree dated March 3, 1970 of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, the defendant has filed this appeal which arises out of a suit for possession and injunction.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondents instituted a suit against defendant No. 1 Premraj and defendant No. 2 Shrinathji Maharaj Shri Mohannathji for possession and injunction. Ex. 6 is the map which was appended to the plaint. The plaintiff, have stated that they are owners of plots No. 1,2,3A to 3D and 4A. The plaintiff, have further mentioned that plot No 1 was purchased on December 15,1946 from Rajendra Kumar son of Vishwanath; plot No. 2 was purchased from Ballabhadas son of Jethmal on March 21, 1947. The remaining aforesaid plots are said to have been purchased from defendant No. 2. On the west of plots No 1 and 2, the house of defendant No. 1 is situate. It was alleged that on August 27,1961, defendant No. 1 opened a door in his wall leading to plot No. 2 and he further encroached upon the land marked MSTD According to the plaintiffs, the land marked MSTD is part of plots No 1,2, 3B and 3C and encircled it by putting stone slabs around it. The suit was instituted in the curt of Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur on November 20, 961 praying that the possession of defendant No. 1 on the land marked MSTD may be removed and the same may be handed over to the plaintiff . It was also prayed that mandatory injunction may be issued against defendant No. 1 for the closure of the door. The plaintiff. also claimed mesne profiles in respect of the land in suit @ Rs. 6/ - p.m. Separate written statement have been filed by defendants No. 1 and 2. In the written statement, which was filed on July 4 1962 by defendant No. 2, it was stated that no cause of action has been disclosed against him and so. the plaint may be rejected. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit on various grounds. It was pleaded that the land snown in red colour in the plan Ex. 6 is of defendant No 1's ownership It was stated that the possession of the of the land in dispute in his and he has been using it on his own right. Toe objections were taken that the suit of the plaintiffs is not within limitation and that he has become owner by adverse possession. The write a statement was filed by defendant No. 1 on April 4 1962. The trial court framed necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties on August 13,1962 After recording evidence of the parties, the learned Munsif, recorded the following findings.

(3.) I have heard Mr. M L. Chhangani, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.S. Narain Bhatta, learned Counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record of the case.