BABU LAL Vs. PUKHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The instant civil second appeal has been preferred by the appellant Babu Lal for assailing the judgment-cum-decree dt. 05.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Appeal No.16/2015 whereby she affirmed the judgment-cum-decree dt. 17.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Bikaner in Civil Suit No.348/2009 (404/2005) whereby, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff- appellant was rejected.

(3.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit in question with the averment that he has a house (the surroundings whereof were described in para No.1 of the plaint) located at the Chopra Bari, Ganga Sahar. He was residing in the house with his father for the last 30 years. The area in which the house was located in an area of 'Kacchi Basti' and the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner was in the process of issuing pattas and regularizing the possession of the respective occupants. He had filed an application for regularisation with the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner annexing therewith, the proof of the old possession and the house of the plaintiff was included in the survey report. He had taken electricity and water connections on the plot in question and the address was also mentioned in the Ration Card. The house of the defendant was located opposite to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to access his house through the road located on the north side, for which, the plaintiff had easementary rights. The defendant had openly declared that he had purchased the plaintiff's plot as well as the road passing in front thereof and that he would take possession thereof. On 09.09.2005, the defendant hurled an insinuation at the plaintiff that he would be ousted and dispossessed from his house. With these averments the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant. The defendant filed a written statement as well as a counter claim averring therein that the plaintiff had neither any right, title or interest in the said premises nor was he in possession on the plot in question. The neighborhood set out in the suit were non-existent. No application for regularization filed by the plaintiff was pending with the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner nor was his name included in the survey list. The suit was filed with misleading averments. The plaintiff had taken illegal possession on a piece of Government land a few years ago. The defendant's plot was situated adjacent to the plot on which the plaintiff had raised unauthorised construction on 25.08.2005. The plaintiff also tried to take possession of the defendant's plot for which, a criminal case was registered. In the counter claim, the defendant prayed that a decree be issued against the plaintiff that he should not interfere in the possession of the defendant on the questioned plot, the map whereof was annexed with the counter claim. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement as well as the counter claim disputing the contentions made therein. The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:-