BANSILAL Vs. HEMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kota passed by him on 30th May, 1964 in a suit for declaration of title and injunction.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal briefly stated are these : In the town of Jhalawar plaintiff Hemraj purchased on the 15th March, 1955 a piece of land measuring 6-2/3 sq. yards from the Municipal Board of the town for a sum of Rs. 10/ -. Adjoining the house of the plaintiff is the house which once belonged to Ghasilal Attar. On 17th July, 1943 Ghasilal Attar obtained a 'patta' from the Municipal Committee, Brijnagar, as Jhalawar was then called. He had made an application to the Municipal Committee stating that he had lost his original 'patta' and thereupon the Committee after due publication of a notice for inviting objections and examining evidence adduced before it granted a 'patta' to Ghasilal Attar along with a plan of the house. For the realisation of certain debts due to the Government proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act were taken against Ghasilal Attar and the house in dispute came to be auctioned. Plaintiff Hemraj made certain objections but after due consideration the Tehsildar, who was conducting the proceedings, made an order on 30th January, 1957 (Cf. Ex. A-2) that Hemraj's objections were without substance and that the entire property indicated in the plan (Ex. A-l) attached to the 'patta' (Ex. A-4) belonged to Ghasilal Attar. THE matter went up to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhalawar and he by his order dated 8th January, 1960 again rejected the contentions of Hemraj and held that the entire property including the one claimed by Hemraj belonged to Ghasilal Attar and was sold to Bansilal, and a sale certificate was accordingly granted to him on 27th January, 1960. Hemraj thereupon instituted a suit on 8th October, 1960 against Bansilal and the State of Rajasthan asking for a declaration that the land measuring 6-2/3 sq. yards on which his latrine stood was his property duly sold to him by the Municipal Board and sought an injunction restraining Bansilal from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. THE suit was contested by Bansilal inter alia on the ground that the 'patta' Ex. A-4 and the plan appended thereto (Ex. A-l) clearly showed that the land in dispute was a part of the property of Ghasilal Attar, which the defendant had purchased in the proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act, and belonged to him. THE trial Court dismissed Hemraj's suit against which he preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Rota. THE learned District Judge observed that Ex. A-4, the new 'patta', issued for the house did not mention that any land out side the house was also included in it. In the site plan (Ex. A-l) the boundaries of the house have been drawn in black ink and the boundaries so marked obviously did not include the open land in front of the house of Ghasilal Attar. With regard to the words written in the plan (Ex. A-l)

(3.) NO other point has been pressed before me.