MADANLAL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD BUNDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has been unsuccessful in both the courts below and his appeal is now directed against the judgment of Senior Civil Judge, Bundi, dated May 11, 1967.

(2.) THE facts are quite simple and are not in dispute. THE plaintiff owns a house in Bundi, of which the description has been given in the plaint. THEre was an open piece of land belonging to the Municipal Board lying towards the south of the plaintiff's property. THE plaintiff wanted to purchase it and an order (Ex. 6) was made by the chairman of the Municipal Board on August 2, 1956, directing that the said piece of land belonging to the Municipal Board may be sold to him after taking its price according to the law. THE plaintiff deposited Rs. 273/- on account of the price on August 8, 1957. THEre was thereafter some dispute between the plaintiff and the Municipal Board and it was not until July 15, 1960 that resolution Ex. 6 was passed by the Municipal Board for the sale of that land to the plaintiff and the issue of a sale certificate to that effect. This was done. , and a registered sale-deed was executed on July 16, 1960. THE Municipal Board, however, informed the plaintiff about a year thereafter that the sale had been cancelled by the State government. THE plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit for a declaration that the suit property was his property, and for the issue of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him. THE State of Rajas-than was impleaded as a party to the suit, and so also the Administrator of the Municipal Board. THE defendants denied the plaintiff's claim mainly on the ground that the chairman of the Municipal Board had no power to sell the land without proper sanction, and that as the sale was unauthorised, it was cancelled by another order of the Chairman of the Board dated December 12, 1956 and the amount deposited by the plaintiff on account of the price of the land was returned to him by a money order which, however, the plaintiff refused to accept. It was the main defence in the case that no right had accrued to the plaintiff in respect of the alleged sale. As has been stated, both the courts below have upheld the defence, and this has given rise to the present appeal.