HEERA LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, the plaintiff-appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 8th July, 1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Churu in Civil Appeal No. 58/90, whereby, the learned Judge has set aside the judgment and decree dated 20th January, 1989 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Civil Original Suit No. 125/84, by which, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff -appellant and restrained the respondents not to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant from the premises in question.

(2.) According to the facts of the case, a suit for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu in which, it was prayed that respondent-Municipal Council, Churu is illegally dispossessing him from the land in question though he is in possession of the said land from last many years. In the plaint it is specially stated by the plaintiff-appellant that his plot is situated in Ward No. 19, near temple of Mata Mancha Devi. Further, it is stated that as per document Savah Bahi No. 47 Sarnwat Year 1933 of page No. 15, the plaintiff-appellant is having patta in his favour issued on Miti Chet Badi 14 Samwat year 1933, therefore, he is holding valid title in his favour. But respondents are threatening him that they will dispossess from the plot in question, therefore, it is prayed that decree for permanent injunction may be passed against the Municipal Council, Churu and restrained the respondents not to evict or dispossess the plaintiff- appellant from the premises in question.

(3.) In the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant, written statement was filed by the respondent-Municipal Council, Churu and it is disputed that there is any title in favour of plaintiff. Further, it was also refuted that Savah Bahi, which is produced by the plaintiff alongwith suit, is not belonging to the plot in question and he is not in possession of the said plot.