GOMATI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dtd. 7/9/2020 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur District in Civil Appeal No.11/2017 whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 17/2/2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur District in Civil Original Suit No.256/2014 (364/2012) has been affirmed. Vide the judgment and decree dtd. 17/2/2017, learned trial Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit for permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant Municipal Corporation was threatening to dispossess her from the land of her ownership measuring 15 x 60 sq.ft. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant neither was any evidence led by him. On basis of pleadings made by the plaintiff, one issue was framed by learned trial Court which reads as under : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_190_LAWS(RAJ)9_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) While deciding the said issue, the learned trial Court specifically concluded that no document pertaining to the ownership of the plaintiff was placed on record. The Court found that although in her affidavit in evidence, the plaintiff had averred that she had purchased the land in question vide agreement dtd. 10/11/2011 from one Dev Krishna Gaur but no such agreement was placed on record. Further, learned Court took into consideration the contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff in her cross-examination wherein she at one instance submitted that there was a Gali adjoining to her residential house whereas on second instance she submitted that there was a open space. In view of the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove her ownership on the land in question, both the Courts below reached to the concurrent finding that she was not entitled for any injunction in her favour.