MUNICIPAL BOARD, JHUNJHUNU Vs. GOKUL CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dt. 20.5.1994 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Regular Appeal No. 36/1986 (24/90 new number) confirming the judgment and decree dt. 23.9.1986 passed by Munsiff, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No. 270/1970. The short facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by the plaintiff -respondent on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the disputed property. A patta has been issued in favour of the father of the plaintiff by Thakur Sahib Harnath Singh Ji in Falgun Sudi 13 Samvat 1987 which is corresponding to 1930. The plaintiff's father died in 1990. Thereafter, plaintiff -respondent remained in possession of the property. He has made constructions over the property thereafter, notice under Sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has been issued hence suit for declaration and injunction has been filed. The contention of the respondent was that the property in dispute was not in possession and ownership of the plaintiff respondent and Thakur Sahib Harnath Singh Ji was not competent to issue the patta and apart from it, it has been specifically pleaded that patta is not registered and not admissible in evidence. The trial Court has decreed the suit and appeal has also been dismissed, hence this appeal.

(2.) THE appeal has been admitted on 30.10.1995 on the following substantial question of law:

(3.) THE only contention of the appellant is that Ex. 1 patta is unregistered and hence relief of declaration could not be allowed to the respondent on the strength of unregistered patta and even it could not be looked into for collateral purposes. No title confers on the respondent on the strength of unregistered document and when respondent is not in ownership of the property, no relief could be allowed to him. In Ex. 1, there is no narration that possession has been handed over to him and in absence of relief for possession, the suit should have been dismissed.