GOPAL LAL Vs. NAGAR PALIKA CHAKSHU, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 03/09/2009 passed by the learned District Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned appellate Court') in Civil Regular Appeal No. 61/2008 whereby, the learned appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31/05/2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial court') in civil suit No. 125/2005, dismissing the suit of plaintiff-appellant for declaration and mandatory injunction.

(2.) The facts in brief, giving rise to the this second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent seeking relief for declaring him as the owner of the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession. It is prayed that defendant be directed to regularise the disputed property in his favour. He also prayed for permanent injunction directing respondent-defendant not to disposses him from the disputed property and not to demolish the construction raised by him on the disputed property and also to restrain the defendant from interfering with the use and occupation of the disputed property. It is also stated in the plaint that plaintiff is in possession since last 80 years over the disputed property.

(3.) The defendant-respondent resisted the suit by filing written statement wherein, the defendant denied the facts mentioned in the plaint and stated that the description and site plan of the disputed property is wrong. The defendant regularised the Kham Makan of the plaintiff considering his possession prior to 1968 but in the Board Meeting dated 30/09/2004, the regularisation was not confirmed. Consequently, money which was taken from the plaintiff, was returned to him and the order of regularisation was set aside. In view of this, the plaintiff has no right to get declaration in his favour on the basis of adverse possession. It is also stated that prior to filing of the suit, notice under Sec. 271 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959) was not served by the plaintiff to the defendant therefore, the suit is not maintainable for want of required notice.