LAWS(RAJ)-2019-11-286

RAMJEEVAN GAUTAM JATTAV Vs. SUMANDEVI KARDAM AND ORS.

Decided On November 01, 2019
Ramjeevan Gautam Jattav Appellant
V/S
Sumandevi Kardam And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed under Sec. 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dtd. 12/3/2014 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Appeal No.131/2009, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dtd. 20/5/2009 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') has been affirmed.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') for permanent injunction, which was disposed of by the Trial court vide its judgment dtd. 8/9/2006. An appeal was filed there against before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide its judgment dtd. 18/11/2006 framed an additional issue and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to decide the matter afresh. It was submitted in the plaint that the plaintiff is the khatedar tenant of 2/3 part of the land of Khasra No. 272 measuring 3 Bigha 19 Biswa situated in village Daudpur, Distt. Alwar. The disputed land was stated to be purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale deed dtd. 20/4/1981 from Khawani, Ram Bux. It was also stated that the defendants wanted to encroach over 10 X 30 ft. western side of the aforesaid piece of land and wanted to raise construction. In this way, the suit was filed for permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants filed the written statement mentioning therein that the plaintiff is not in possession over the land in question. Conversely in the disputed land, residential plots were constructed and sold after the site plan of which approved by the UIT, Alwar. It was also stated that over the residential plots, the purchasers are in possession and the plaintiff is not in possession. The defendants also stated to have purchased the land in question by way of agreement to sell and to be in possession over there since then. They also stated that the entire construction was completed before 21/5/1995.