RAJMAL JAIN Vs. SMT. BHANWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under Sec. 96 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No. 22/99, whereby the trial court had dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff seeking declaration, injunction and mesne profits in respect of the property in question against the respondents (original defendants).

(2.) The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents-defendants before the trial court alleging inter alia that the plaintiff had purchased the property marked as "ABCD" in the map (Ex.5) annexed to the plaint, by the two sale-deeds, out of which the eastern portion was purchased from one Smt. Shanti M. Devi by registered sale-deed dated 21.8.72 (Ex. 2) and the western portion thereof was purchased vide registered sale-deed dated 21.8.72 from one Shri Raghuveer Singh (Ex.3); that the disputed suit premises was marked as "ABEF" in the said map (Ex.5), which was part of the property purchased from Shanti M. Devi as per the sale-deed dated 21.8.72. It was further averred that in the year 1980, the plaintiff was staying at Imphal (Manipur) and taking undue advantage of his absence, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had put up one 'thadi' (cabin) under the tin-shed towards the eastern side of the said property i.e. the disputed premises marked as "ABEF"; that because of the said 'thadi', the ingress and egress of the plaintiff towards eastern side was closed and the window of eastern side was also closed ; that one Shri Dharam Chand Jain was in possession of the some part of the property of the northern side and the said Dharam Chand Jain had sub-let the premises to the sub-tenants including the defendants and thus the defendants had put up illegal 'thadi' on the said disputed property marked "ABEF"; that the said defendants were asked to remove the said 'thadi' but they did not. The plaintiff thereafter had filed one suit against the said Dharam Chand Jain seeking possession of the disputed property and in the said suit compromise was arrived at on 18.5.96 (Ex. 14), by which the said Dharam Chand Jain had handed over the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were running a wine shop in the said 'thadi' and were trying to put up illegal construction in Aug., 1999. The plaintiff, therefore, had filed the suit of seeking declaration that he was the owner of the disputed premises and was entitled to recover possession thereof from the defendants, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction on the disputed property and from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in their right of passage and also a direction against defendant No.4, Jaipur Nagar Nigam not to permit the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to carry out the alleged construction on the disputed property. The said suit was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) denying the allegations and the averments made in the plaint and further contending inter alia that the said Shanti M. Devi was not the owner of the disputed property and, therefore, could not have sold the same to the plaintiff ; that the said defendants were running the wines shop in the disputed premises since Aug. 1982 in the name and style of "Naveen Wines". It was also contended that the said disputed property was purchased by the said defendants subsequently on 29th April, 1986 from one Shri Goving Narain and since then the said defendants were the owners of the disputed property. It was further contended that in the suit filed by the plaintiff against the said Dharam Chand Jain, one Commissioner was appointed for local inspection and as per the report and the map prepared by the said Commissioner on 5.8.82, there was a reference of "Naveen Wines" at the disputed site and, therefore, the plaintiff was aware about the possession of the defendants of the said disputed property since then. According to the defendants, the defendants had become the owners by adverse possession and that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation.

(3.) The trial court from the pleadings of the parties had framed as many as 13 issues, and after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, by giving findings on some of the issues in favour of the plaintiff and some in favour of the defendants. The trial court while dismissing the suit inter alia held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises marked as "ABEF" in the map (Ex.5), however, the defendant Nos. 1 to had become owners by adverse possession as they were in possession of the disputed property for more than 12 years. The trial court also held that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation and the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant-plaintiff has filed the present appeal.