CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. TAKHATRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali, Headquarter -Jetaran, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jetaran, has been confirmed.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: -the plaintiffs -respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction on 24.07.1985, inter alia, with the averments that a Upasara belonging to the Tapegach Jain Samaj is situated at Jetaran, wherein, Sampat Raj Mathur was in possession of a Bagechi of said Upasara; the suit was being filed in representative capacity; the Patta of Samvat Year 1918 was given by the then Maharaja of Jodhpur Takhat Singh; whereafter, in Samvat Year 1938 Patta of another land nearby was issued by the then Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur; the area of land was 2 bigha and was in possession of the Samaj for over 100 years; the disputed Bagechi was let out by Chiefs of the Samaj Anraj and Girdharilal in Samvat Year 1998 to Jugraj Khariwal and Nathmal for yearly rent of Rs. 15/ -; whereafter, in Samvat Year 2008, the Bagechi was let out to Ganeshmal and Sohanlal and new rent -note was executed in Samvat Year 2030, after death of Ganeshmal; Sampatraj executed a fresh rent -note on 15.01.1983 and was operating a Petrol Pump; Tehsildar, Jetaran instituted proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act again the plaintiff's tenant Ganeshmal in 1955 -56, which was rejected by Tehsildar, Jetaran on 09.04.1957; the disputed land was recorded in the Revenue Records as Khasra No. 291 to 294; Tehsildar, Jetaran again registered Case under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act on 15.05.1985, which was dismissed on 19.06.1985; Assistant Director, Land & Building Tax Department, Pali by his order dated 20.09.1979 decided that the disputed property was not liable to payment of Land And Building Tax; the defendants were attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs by claiming the land as Government Land and were attempting to trespass over the same for the purpose of auction and allotment, it was prayed that permanent injunction be issued against the defendants from auctioning or allotting the suit property to anyone and not to interfere in the physical possession of the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE trial court framed as many as ten issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined eight documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined and three documents were exhibited.