SULTANA Vs. MURLI MANOHAR PALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 3/10/2023 passed by Learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan. Petitioners have also prayed that the applications filed by the respondents-plaintiffs may kindly be rejected and the Learned Court below may be restrained from taking the documents produced by respondents-plaintiffs on record as admissible in evidence and mark them as exhibits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a petition for recovery of possession, declaration, mesne-profit and permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants while stating that the petitioners are the encroachers over a part of the property, Plot No. 455 admeasuring 556.11 square yard situated at Pal Link Road, Jodhpur. The said property had been allotted to Late Shri Ramchandra (father of the respondent/plaintiff No. 1) and respondent/plaintiff No. 1 by Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur on 7/10/1970 and thereafter a license in respect of which was issued in the name of the father of the respondentplaintiff and respondent-plaintiff No. 1 on 15/5/1974. Also, a patta in respect of the allotted land was issued in favour of father of the respondent-plaintiff and respondent-plaintiff No. 1 which was registered on 22/6/1991.

(3.) Furthermore, the husband of petitioner-defendant No. 1 late Taj Mohammad had illegally encroached upon a part of the suit property of the defendants to the extent of one 88 square yard and thereafter had made an application before the Land Conversion Officer, Jodhpur, for regularizing his illegal encroachment which was accepted and resultantly on 3/3/1990 a patta was issued in favour of the Taj Mohammed. Thereafter, the grant of Patta in favour of the Taj Mohammad was contested by the respondent-plaintiff at various forums and Shri Taj Mohammad also filed a suit qua UIT, Jodhpur, wherein an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, the part of suit property which was not possessed by the respondents/plaintiffs was sold by them vide registered deed dtd. 28/7/2008 to Manohar Lal Paliwal.