GHANSHYAM DUTT Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing instant second appeal under section 100 CPC the appellant/plaintiff has prayed to quash and set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 17.11.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Sikrai, District Dausa ('the learned trial court' for short) in case No.06/1998, which has been affirmed vide Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.2011 by learned Addl. District Judge, Bandikui District Dausa ('the learned appellate court' for short) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 28/2008 by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that the appellant/plaintiff along-with respondent No. 5 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants contending therein that on Sikandra Crossing Geejgarh Road, property of the plaintiff/appellant consisting of shops and one room are in existence, towards west open undivided land belongs to both plaintiff and defendants, main gate of the room of the plaintiff is on northern side where also having windows, drainage etc. The said room and chowk is in ownership and possession of the plaintiff/appellant. The defendants have no concern but they want to close the door, windows and drainage of the plaintiffs of the said room and also to raise construction in chowk without any authority of law. Counsel argued that the plaintiff/appellant has filed suit for permanent injunction wherein issue of ownership is not decided. Counsel has argued that the plaintiff has clearly proved his possession over the disputed property and evidence of the plaintiff has been un-rebutted, possession of the plaintiff is also clear from Commissioner Report.

(3.) Counsel argued that both the learned courts below have not considered and discussed the Commissioner's report. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below.