NARPAT KARAN Vs. WALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a typical case where a piece of land which is alleged to be part of the public street in the city of Jodhpur was sold by allotment by the Allotment Committee of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The most curious aspect of the case is that this allotment was done if at all it was done in such a manner which raised several questions about its genuineness. In view of the above two salient features of the case, namely, the land being alleged to be part of public street and the allotment being of alleged suspicious nature I have heard the second appeal at length and perused the documents and evidence shown to me by the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that: The plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant -respondent Narpat Karan. It was alleged that the house of the plaintiff and respondent No. 1 are situated inside Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur. There is an open gali in between them which is a Khalsa land which has been used for ingress and egress. Portion ABCD marked in the site plan annexed to the plaint was secretly allotted in the name of the defendant Narpatkaran by the Municipality under collusion. The plaintiff made efforts to get it cancelled but he could not succeed. It is alleged in the plaint that the allotment was refused on 30 -7 -1960 but later on some members of the Municipal Committee in collusion with the defendant got the land allotted and granted permission to make construction thereon. The plaintiff's case is that if the constructions are raised the carts and trucks would not be able to reach the plaintiff's four Kotharies that exist there for keeping his grains etc. The defendant's has collected the material for construction so the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence and hearing the parties the Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff went in appeal. The learned appellate court disposed of appeal on 14 -5 -1966 but 2nd appeal was preferred to the Hon'ble High Court and the appeal was remanded to elaborately discuss the evidence regarding two material questions: