TIKA RAM Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to a Bench of two Judges by an learned Judge of this Court because in his opinion the point raised in it is one which arises almost every day in civil litigations as to title, and it is desirable that an authoritative opinion be laid down.

(2.) The plaintiff appellant claimed possession of a piece of land in front of his house by demolition of certain constructions made by the defendants on a portion of it adjoining his own house, as well as for injunction and damages. The defendant had succeeded in obtaining a lease from the Municipal Board of this plot of land, which, however, was subsequently revoked by the Board at the instance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the land as his own property and repudiated the assertion that is was Nazul land. On the other hand the defendant pleaded in the first place that the north-western portion of it on which his constructions stood was his own land, and also pleaded that the rest of the land was Nazul land under the charge of the Municipal Board of which he held a lease.

(3.) The Court of first instance decreed the claim, and almost reaffirmed its findings when fresh issues were remanded by the lower appellate Court. The latter Court, however, has dismissed the claim. The plaintiff's title to that portion of the land which abuts on his house and is marked by a red line CD in Ex. A was not disputed before the lower appellate Court and has not been challenged before us. It is necessary to make this point clear so that there may be no future difficulty arising out of the dismissal of the plaintiff's case.