SHANTI DEVI Vs. U.I.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of Sh. Bishandas Khatri, viz. Smt. Shanti Devi and others have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the concurrent rejection of their Civil Suit No. 500/2001 -Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. UIT, Bikaner and Tek Chand S/o Topandas. The learned trial court rejected the suit on 31.08.2005 and the first appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs being Civil Appeal No. 104/2005 was rejected on 10.03.2014.

(2.) THE relevant extract of both these judgments and decrees of the courts below are quoted herein below for ready reference to have a birds' eye view of the chequered history of the litigation, which started in the year 1947 when Bishan Das, upon partition of the country, came from Pakistan side to Bikaner, in the State of Rajasthan.

(3.) MR . M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arpit Bhoot, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the learned courts below have erred in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs as it was clear from the documents on record that both the plots were allotted to the plaintiff's husband late Sh. Bishandas. He showed to the Court Exhibit -1, which is an allotment letter issued by the then Dy. Director, Rehabilitation Department, Bikaner on 16.09.1952 in favour of Bishandas, citing No. 2 & 3 for flour mill in the Rathkhana area of Bikaner and also a copy of the letter dated 25.07.1958 issued by the Regional Settlement Commissioner wherein the deduction from the gross compensation of Rs. 460.69 was made for two plots at Bikaner given in the said certificate of payment of compensation to him by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. Mr. Bhoot also submitted that "Khancha -Bhumi" allotted in favour of defendant Tek Chand, could not be so allotted in his favour as there was 10 Ft. wide "Gali" (street) between the plaintiff's residential house and the disputed "Khancha -Bhumi" allotted to the defendant and by which he encroached upon the second plot of the plaintiff, on which the plaintiff had established a flour mill.