ALOK SINGH Vs. NATHU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendant -appellant's (hereinafter 'the defendant') second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2012, passed by the lower appellate court dismissing the defendant's appeal under Section 96 CPC and upholding the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, decreeing the plaintiffs -respondents' (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') suit for permanent injunction. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction before the trial court stating that they had purchased the suit property from the Nagar Palika (Municipality), Chaksu, District Jaipur on or about 24.09.1960, had paid the requisite consideration therefore and were in continuous possession thereof since then. It was stated that the said plot was thereafter used from time to time to dump their material thereon. It was stated that on 27.04.1991 when the plaintiffs were in the process of making construction over the said plot, the defendant Alok Singh sought to obstruct them and objected to the construction. Finding a cause of action in the facts and circumstances detailed above, a suit for permanent injunction was filed praying that the plaintiffs' possession over the plot in question be protected by way of grant of a decree of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Alok Singh from interfering with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) ON service of notice of the suit laid, the defendant Alok Singh inevitably filed a written statement of denial. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed nine issues. Of importance to this second appeal arising from a suit for permanent injunction are issues Nos. 1 & 1A primarily related to the question as to whether the plaintiffs were the owner of the disputed land and had legal possession thereof. The other issues as framed by the trial court and considered by it as also by the learned first appellate court would be subsumed or otherwise rendered otiose on the determination of issues of the plaintiffs' title, possession and right to an injunction in law.

(3.) AN appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010, passed by the trial court, failed with the first appellate court concurring with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court both on the question of the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the disputes plot. Hence this second appeal under Section 100 CPC.