HAZARILAL Vs. NAGAR PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : The plaintiff after having given the highest bid of Rs. 11,800 on 9-11955 at a sale by public auction held in pursuance of the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. hereinafter called as the Act, and the rules framed thereunder in respect of the property bearing Nos. 293, 293/1 situate in ward No. 8 at Alwar, obtained Certificate of Sale Ex. 1 signed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 23-12-1958. Along with the certificate of sale, a plan of the property sold was also handed over to the plaintiff which is Ex. 2. The certificate of sale Ex. 1 mentions boundaries of the property sold, its total area, namely, 279 sq. yards and its plot Nos. 293 and 293/1. The plan Ex. 2 shows the land sold, its boundaries and plot Nos. 293 and 293/1. The dispute between the parties relates to a portion out of this property. The disputed portion has been shown in the plan attached to the plaint in red lines bearing plot No. 293/1. The plaintiff constructed one tin-shed on this disputed land and got its floor plastered with cement. The defendant-Nagar Parishad, Alwar, threatened the plaintiff to demolish the tin-shed and remove the cemented floor. The plaintiff then filed a suit on 2-111961 out of which this appeal has arisen, for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and use of the disputed land. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff purchased the property bearing No. 293 but pleaded his own title on the property bearing No. 293/1. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff had forcibly encroached upon the land bearing No. 293/1 and thereby obstructed the traffic. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed several issues, material issue being :-- "Whether the disputed land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff?" The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the disputed land and decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Alwar, by his judgment dated 24-3-1967 reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.

(3.) Dealing with the main issue, the learned Senior Civil Judge held that the Certificate of Sale Ex. 1 was not correct and the disputed land bearing No. 293/1 had been erroneously included therein. He gave the following reasons for arriving at the above conclusion :--