SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT AKOLA Vs. RADHAKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dt. 01.09.2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Civil Appeal No. 13/2006, whereby, learned appellate Court allowed appeal filed by the respondent -plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree dt. 15.09.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kapasan in Civil Original Suit No. 22/2005 (Old No. 1/1996) whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff with cost of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(2.) ACCORDING to facts of the case, the respondent -plaintiff preferred a suit before the trial Court for permanent injunction, in which, it is stated that he is in possession of the yard (ckM+k) situated in village Akola and that ckM+k land is his ancestral property and his family is residing there for last one hundred years and they are using the ckM+k for their cattle and keeping agricultural equipments. On 26.09.1995, appellant Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the respondent plaintiff, to which, reply was filed by the respondent; and, thereafter, the matter was proceeded with. In the circumstances, the respondent -plaintiff gave registered notice under Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act to the appellant which was received by the appellant Gram Panchayat on 26.10.1995. Thereafter, the plaintiff -respondent filed suit against the Gram Panchayat, Akola for permanent injunction not to disturb and evict him from the property in question.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is erroneous because the learned appellate Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. According to him, the plaintiff respondent failed to prove his possession over the land in question and the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff was self -contradictory but this aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the lower appellate Court, therefore, the judgment and decree impugned deserve to be set aside.