THE UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 22.05.1982 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirohi, whereby, judgment and decree dated 22.03.1978 passed by Munsif, Desuri has been upheld.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff -Daulat Singh (since deceased) filed a suit against the defendants -appellants seeking permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing him from the suit land; it was, inter alia, claimed in the plaint that the land in question was sold through a Patta granted by Gram Panchayat, Rani on 23.05.1958 though the plaintiff was in possession of the land since 1943 and had established a godown for storing coal; an agreement dated 07.01.1958 was executed among Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rani, plaintiff and officers of Western Railways, wherein, it was accepted that the land was of plaintiff's possession and was comprised in the Patta and all the rights between the parties were determined by the said agreement; on 01.08.1969 agent of the Railways informed plaintiff that defendant No. 3 -Assistant Engineer, Western Railway has directed him to remove plaintiff's possession, which was resisted and whereafter he was threatened with dispossession; ultimately, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the plaintiffs peaceful possession.

(3.) BASED on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed nine issues; issue No. 4 which pertained to validity of Patta dated 23.05.1958 and the validity of notice under Section 80 CPC were decided in the terms that as the Patta was unregistered and unstamped, the same was inadmissible in evidence and could not even be used for collateral purposes and the notice issued by the plaintiff was valid; issue No. 6 which pertained to maintainability of the suit, in view of the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was decided against the appellants and issue No. 7 pertaining to sufficiency of Court fees was decided in favour of the defendants and plaintiff was required to pay the deficient Court fees, as such, the issue Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were preliminary in nature, were decided during the pendency of the suit.