VIJAY LAXMI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff has filed this second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 10/12/2015 passed in Civil Regular First Appeal No.35/2011 by the Additional District Judge, Malpura, District Tonk affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 20/10/2011 passed in Civil Suit No.44/2009 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malpura, District Tonk whereby and whereunder the appellant-plaintiff's suit, for declaration of the mutation entries dtd. 20/9/1977 and alternatively for claiming compensation as well as permanent injunction in relation to a way in question through her agricultural land, was dismissed on merits as well as on limitation.

(2.) The relevant facts, succinctly stated, are that during lifetime of plaintiff's father-in-law, namely Shri. Mangilal, out of his khatedari land of Khasra No.774, 11 biswa land was taken for the purpose of a public way and this part was separated from his agricultural lands, by marking it as Khasra No.774/1 vide order dtd. 16/9/1977. The area of road, was entered into the name of P.W.D on 20/9/1977 and the record, of mutation and Jamabandi (Ex.2 and Ex.3), is available on record. It is not in dispute that much thereafter, plaintiff got married with son of khatedaar-Mangilal on 13/6/1982, and her husband passed away on 11/6/1984. The plaintiff filed the present civil suit on 10/6/2009, assailing the mutation entries dtd. 20/9/1977, it means after expiry of near about 32 years. It has come on record that the plaintiff does not dispute that since time of her father-in-law, the land in question of 11 biswa was/is being used for the way by villagers and a pakki road has already been constructed by the P.W.D, prior to her marriage.

(3.) In such backdrop of facts, the trial court, vide judgment dtd. 20/10/2011, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The trial court observed that for the present nature of suit for declaration, the prescribed limitation is three years, which has expired during lifetime of plaintiff's father-in-law Mangilal. The suit filed by plaintiff after expiry of 32 years, cannot be treated within limitation by any stretch of imagination. The trial court observed that that the way in question is being used by villagers and to whom the easmentary right has already been vested to have their access to the way in question.