GANESHNARAYAN SAINI Vs. JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs under Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 4/3/2020 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No.23/2019 titled as Ganeshnarayan Saini and Others Vs. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dtd. 17/9/2019 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No.29/2005 titled as Ganeshnarayan Saini and Others Vs. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur.

(2.) The appellants-plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit against the respondent-defendant seeking permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land alleging therein that their ancestral land was situated nearby 22 Godown, Jaipur and their ancestors were in possession of the land for more than 100 years and an electric connection was also obtained in year 1967 and their predecessors, namely Gulab Chand @ Gulla deposited a hasil on 16/6/1941 to the Rajasthan Sawai Jaipur and registration under the Shops and Establishment Act was also issued by the authority concerned, and the Municipality, Jaipur had also issued licence. Thereafter, license was issued in the name of 'Siyaram Bhojnalaya' in year, 1992. The appellants-plaintiffs are in possession of their ancestral property, which is neither part of the road nor part of any footpath nor belongs to the Municipal Corporation, inspite thereof, the Officers of the Municipal Corporation threatened the appellants for dispossession.

(3.) The said suit was opposed by the respondent-defendant by submitting a written-statement, denying the allegations and further contending inter-alia that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the disputed land for 100 years and they started running business only some time back on the illegally encroached public footpath measuring around 57x12 by the name of 'Siyaram Bhojnalya' for which the respondent has sent a notice to the plaintiffs asking him to produce documents regarding ownership and title but the plaintiffs did not provide any document.