URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. CHHAGAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC, appellant-defendant has challenged judgment dated 10th of July, 2006 passed by Addl. District Judge No.3, Udaipur (for short, 'learned first appellate Court'), whereby learned first appellate Court, while dismissing appeal of the appellant, has confirmed judgment dated 10th of April, 2003 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City (North), Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court').

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against appellant for perpetual and mandatory injunction, inter alia, on the ground that Gram Panchayat, Sisarma allotted Plot No.84 to one Ambalal S/o Fatehlal Khatik, resident of Udaipur on 9th of November, 1975, which was subsequently sold by Ambalal to Kishan Lal S/o Khatik by a registered instrument. Lastly, the said land was purchased by respondent from Kishan Lal through a registered sale-deed dated 31st of July 1996 and since then he is in possession of the land in question. For showing cause, it is, inter alia, averred by the respondent-plaintiff that the appellant issued a notice under Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short, 'Act') and further threatened to dispossess him from the land in question. It is also averred in the plaint that the appellant is also proceeding under Section 91-A of the Act against him. With these averments, requisite prayer for mandatory and temporary injunction is made in the plaint.

(3.) The suit was contested by appellant-UIT by filing its written statement. In the written statement, the appellant, inter-alia, pleaded that patta issued by Gram Panchayat, in favour of Ambalal, was illegal as it was not authorized to issue the same. It is further averred that since the predecessor-in-title of the respondent-plaintiff was having no valid title, even therefore registered instrument has not conferred any right, title or interest in his favour over the land in question. The appellant has also mentioned with clarity and precision in the written statement that earlier notice under Section 92-A of the Act was also issued against Ambalal.