BANSHI LAL Vs. CHAMPA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff, by the instant second appeal, has challenged a concurring judgment dated 10 th of April, 2019 of District Judge, Pali (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'). The learned lower appellate Court affirmed the impugned judgment and decree dated 28th of September, 2012 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pali (for short, 'learned trial Court').

(2.) The factual matrix, giving rise to this appeal, is that appellant filed a civil suit against respondents for perpetual injunction, inter-alia, on the ground that he is carrying on business of sweets and namkin in the name and style of 'Gokul Sweets' at Shop No.11, Old Bus-stand, Pali, which was taken on rent from Panchmukhi Mahadev Temple. It is also averred by the appellant that he is regularly paying rent to the landlord and maintaining his family out of the business earnings from the shop. A fact is also pleaded that the respondents are his brothers who are carrying on their business in adjacent shop No.9, wherein he is having no share. The appellant very specifically pleaded in the plaint that the respondents always harboured animosity against him and they are out and out to take possession of the disputed shop wherein he is a tenant. Appellant also made endeavour to aver in the plaint that his mother was living with him till her death and out of respect and affection he had mentioned her name as tenant in the rented shop but the fact remains that he alone is carrying on business in the rented shop.

(3.) Castigating the respondents, appellant also pleaded that they are trying to forcibly dispossess him from the shop in question. For substantiating this assertion, the appellant also averred in the plaint that earlier with the help of a retired police employee an attempt was made by the respondents to dispossess him from the shop in question and therefore in case he is dispossessed from the shop, he would suffer irreparable loss. The fact about false complaint lodged by the respondents against appellant and his family members is also pleaded in the plaint. With all these averments, the appellant craved for the relief of perpetual injunction that respondents may not evict him without following due process of law and further not to cause any damage to his belongings in the shop.