JAI CHAND SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE ten civil revision petitions are directed against the judgments of the trial Court declining to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners (plaintiffs) in their suits for permanent injunction, which have been affirmed by the appellate court. Since common questions of facts so also law are involved, these petitions were heard at joint request of the parties and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) LAST four petitions filed by Shri R. K. Agrawal on behalf of the petitioners in CRP No. 349 to 352/2000 and first petition filed by Shri G. C. Garg on behalf of the petitioner in CRP No. 348/2000 are directed against common order dated 5. 4. 2k passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur in their civil misc. appeal Nos. 16 to 19 & 15/2000, arising out of judgments dated 28. 3. 2k of the Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur City in civil misc. (TI) case Nos. 107/2k (Radha Govind), 109 & 110/2k (Lalchand), 108/2k (Manoharlal) & 151/2k (Jaichand ).

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaint, plaintiff is Surya Bhagwan Agrawal Dharamshala and in the suit for permanent injunction so also application for temporary injunction, the plaintiff claimed relief of injunction for restraining the defendant (Municipality) from interferring with possession and demolition of a piece of land measuring 8 ft. x 8. 6 ft. over which a shop & underground had been constructed in the Dharamshala situated at the corner of Chowkri Ghat Darwaja, Manak Chowk Choppar & Ramganj Bazar Jaipur. The suit shop land is stated to have belonged being in the ownership of one Surajmal Modi under a registered sale deed dated 10/11/1935 having been purchased from Gordhanlal & Harinarain on or about 10/11/1935 and whereafter Surajmal had died on 7. 12. 1935 and whereafter Surajmal had died on 7. 12. 1954 thereby whose ownership stood inherited in favour of Chuttanlal who also before his death executed a will in favour of 30. 7. 1963 in favour of his wife Vidhyadevi as her half of share and rest half of the share was gifted in favour of Dharamshala. It has also been averred that under the garb of a notification dated 17. 7. 54 which related to the declaration of verandah as public street, the defendant is likely to dispossess the occupier of the suit shop so also by way of demolition of construction thereon whereas the suit shop property has been in continuation possession of its owners so also transferees since 1935, nor there was any question of exercise of powers on the part of the defendant Municipality under Sec. 203 of the Act in respect of the suit shop & the underground therein. In written statement the defendant has reiterated the assertions as have been made in other similar suit which have been referred to herein above. Re. Civil Suit No. 101/2000 (CRP No. 521/2000)