NAGAR PALIKA HINDAUN CITY Vs. HUKUM SINGH ADOPTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant (for brevity, "defendant") against the judgment and decree dtd. 19/2/2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City (for brevity, "the learned Appellate Court") in Civil Regular First Appeal No.66/2010 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment dtd. 26/7/2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.1, Hindaun City (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") decreeing the suit No.28/2004 (16/99) filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") for permanent injunction, has been upheld.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant stating therein that he was under the ownership and possession of the subject suit shop as described in Para No.1 of the plaint. It was alleged that the defendant wanted to demolish the shop reckoning it as a part of public toilet. Thus, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. The defendants in its written statement submitted that the subject shop was constructed by the plaintiff on the land of public toilet only recently and was disentitled for the decree prayed for. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned trial Court framed three issues including relief.

(3.) After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dtd. 26/7/2007 holding the plaintiff under the ownership and possession of the subject shop. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendant has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dtd. 19/2/2011. Assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 19/2/2011, only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that that the learned Courts did not appreciate that under Sec. 92 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for brevity, "the Act of 1959"), the subject property being of public utility, stood vested in it. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dtd. 19/2/2011 be quashed and set aside and the civil suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Heard. Considered.