SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, NIMBAHEDA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal has been filed by appellant-plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi against the respondent-defendant Municipal Board, Nimbaheda being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nimbaheda, Camp Badi Sadri in Civil Appeal No.44/2005, by which the learned lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimbaheda in Civil Original Suit No.62/2005 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellantplaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants with the averments that she is having a residential plot of her ownership and possession at Ishakpura, Nimbaheda as decribed in para No.1 of the plaint and shown by red ink in Nazri Naksha as ABCD. It was averred that the patta of the said land was issued on21.06.1984 vide patta No.4943. It was averred that the respondentdefendants without giving any notice to the plaintiff have started raising construction on her plot and are trying to dispossess her. Being aggrieved by the actitivies of the defendants the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants in the trial court.

(3.) The respondent-defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein it was stated that the suit land is the property of defendant Municipal Board and further no patta was issued in regard to the plot in question and the patta shown by the appellant-plaintiff is fake and unauthorized. It was further averred that the respondentdefendants are raising construction of the land in question in public interest under the development schemes. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues and recorded the evidence of both the parties. In oral evidence, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Manjoor Hussain as P.W.2 and in documentary evidence exhibited the original patta of the suit plot as Ex.1. The defendants in oral evidence examined D.W.1 Mangat Ram Jat and in documentary evidence they exhibited revenue record of the land (Ex.A-1-A) and the record regarding issuance of free residential pattas (Ex.A-2-A).