RAJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH CHOUHAN Vs. PRAKASHWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgement and decree dtd. 24/7/2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Ajmer (for brevity, "learned appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.6/2017 (80/2007) CIS Registration No.372/2014 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants (for brevity, "the defendants"), the judgement dtd. 8/3/2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) City-North, Ajmer (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") decreeing the Civil Suit No.202/2003 filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") for mandatory and permanent injunction, has been upheld.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit stating therein that he was under ownership and possession of a plot admeasuring 369.38 square yards as described in Para No.1 of the plaint. It was alleged that on 10/8/2003, the defendants have gathered construction material towards eastern side of his plot and have started raising construction of a wall encroaching upon 30 feet of his plot. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement submitted that he has raised construction of the subject wall in the year 1981 and was repairing it and increasing its height. It was averred that the subject land was under his ownership and possession. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed three issues including relief. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgement dtd. 8/3/2007 which has been upheld and affirmed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgement and decree dtd. 24/7/2019. Assailing the impugned judgement and decree dtd. 24/7/2019, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Courts have failed to appreciate that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation inasmuch as they have raised construction of the subject wall in the year 1982 whereas, the suit was filed in the year 2003. He further submits that the learned Court erred in granting the decree of possession in absence of any such prayer. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgement and decree dtd. 24/7/2019 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Heard. Considered.