SUMITRA DEVI Vs. NAGARPARISHAD THROUGH COMMISSIONER, CHITTORGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal to challenge judgment and decree dated 21st of November, 2011 passed by District Judge, Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), whereby learned lower appellate Court has affirmed judgment and decree dated 15th of October, 2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for perpetual injunction.

(2.) Appellant-plaintiff filed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that a plot measuring 40 X 60 feet situated at Bajrang Colony, Karni Mata Ka Khera, Municipal Area, Chittorgarh is owned by her and she is in possession of the land. The neighbourhoods of the land in question are also mentioned in the plaint. As per version of appellantplaintiff, the land was purchased by her from Ganesh Keer, by a registered instrument dated 28th March, 1992. According to appellant-plaintiff, when the land was included within the municipal area, the respondent, Municipal Board, threatened her to dispossess from the land and that has furnished her cause of action to lay the suit. A prayer is made for issuance of decree for perpetual injunction not to dispossess her from the land in question.

(3.) The suit is contested by respondent, Municipal Board, In the return, the Municipal Board has specifically pleaded that the land in question is not owned by the appellant and, on the contrary, she has encroached over the land. The Municipal Board has set out a defence in the written statement that the land, which is part of Abadi land of Khasra No.306, is owned by Municipal Board. It is also pleaded that Ganesh Keer never remained in possession of the plot in question, nor he was owner of the land. The socalled patta issued in the name of Ganesh Keer is a spurious document inasmuch as recitals contained in the patta are bereft of material particulars about the proposal for its allotment and it is also not signed by the competent authority. It is also pleaded that the alleged patta is signed by the alleged working Sarpanch, which is not a post under the Panchayati Raj Act.