BHAGIRATH Vs. GOVIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-defendant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Deedwana, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and has quashed and set aside the judgment dated 20.7.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deedwana.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that Govind Ram, and Chimna Ram, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, had filed a suit before the learned trial court, wherein they had claimed that they are resident of ward No. 24, where they have a particular plot, which has been under their possession for the last forty years. According to them, the said plot was allotted to Govind Ram on 22.1.1986 vide Title Deed No. 0328. Although the plot was co-jointly owned by the plaintiff and other brothers, they have divided it into their respective shares. While the western part has been given to Govind Ram, the respondent-plaintiff No.1, the eastern side has been given to Chimna Ram, the respondent-plaintiff No.2. According to them, on the southern portion given to Chimna Ram, there is an old toilet and bathroom, and they had fallen in disrepair. Therefore, they wanted to re- construct the said toilet and bathroom. According to them, due to political animosity, the members of the Municipal Council wanted to unnecessarily harass them. Therefore, a false complaint was submitted, and it was claimed that plaintiff-respondents have encroached upon the road belonging to the Municipal Council. On the basis of this complaint, the Municipal Council was threatening to demolish the said toilet and bathroom. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed.

(3.) A bare perusal of the judgment dated 20.7.2010, clearly reveals that the learned trial court has drawn inference from the site plain (Ex.2). According to the learned trial court, since Govind Ram (P.W.1) had clearly claimed that he had left five feet of his own land, and Bhagirath's father had also left part of his land for the purpose of the road. Therefore, the land within the possession of the plaintiffs should be forty-nine feet. However, according to Ex.2, the land shown in their possession is fifty-four feet. Thus, according to the learned Civil Judge obviously, the plaintiffs have encroached upon the public land.