JAGDISH SINGH AND ORS. Vs. UIT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPALLED by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31st of March 2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), appellants/plaintiffs have laid this second appeal. By the impugned judgment, the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No. 6, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby it has dismissed the suit of the appellants for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE apposite facts of this appeal are that appellants filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants on the basis that plaintiffs are in possession of a Bada situated in Khasara No. 388, Bali Mandawata, Mandore, Jodhpur for last more than five decades since when their father was using it for storing grains etc. It is averred in the plaint that on the basis of their possession on the land, an application was moved by their father for issuance of Patta in respect of the said land. Their uncle also moved application for obtaining Patta of the land and Panchayat Samiti, Surpura started proceedings to grant Patta to their uncle Girdhari and Patta was issued to him but when their father came to know about it, he raised objection that his brother Girdhari was not having possession over the disputed land and only on the basis of forged documents he had applied for patta of the disputed land but despite raising objection by the plaintiffs' father patta was issued in the name of their uncle was not cancelled. The plaintiffs came up with the case that they are in possession of the disputed land but respondents/defendants want to encroach over their land. Injunction was sought to the effect that for the disputed land, lease deed or patta should not be granted in favour of Smt. Roopa Devi.

(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of rival parties, the learned trial Court framed six issues for determination. In support of their case, on behalf of the plaintiffs four witnesses were produced. In defence, defendant No. 2 herself appeared in the witness box.