Kanhaiya Lal vs Urban Improvement Trust

Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.—This is plaintiff''s second appeal filed u/s 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 1/2/2007 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota in Civil Appeal No. 13/2006 whereby he partly allowed the appeal and while setting aside the judgment and decree of permanent injunction passed by the trial court, directed to the defendant not to take any action in regard to the disputed land without due process of law.

Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction stating therein that he had purchased a plot measuring 25x40 sq. ft. situated at Chattarpura, Kota from one Bhanwar Lal son of Mishri Lal through a registered sale deed in 1984. It was further the case of the plaintiff that he applied before the Urban Improvement Trust on 25/4/1984 for permission of raising construction but the UIT did not accord permission despite of the notice given by the plaintiff on 12/2/1985 and instead of giving the required permission the UIT chose to demolish two ''tapries'' which were already there. According to the plaintiff, the area where the disputed plot is situated has been transferred to the Municipal Council, Kota who accorded permission on 19/11/1987 to the plaintiff for raising construction over the said plot but thereafter also the respondent UIT demolished the boundary wall and the foundation wall of two rooms in the said plot and started raising wall from east to west which is opposite to the disputed plot which will create hurdle for easy access to the plot premises in question.

The defendant UIT filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. It was also the case of the defendant that plaintiff had no title over the plot in question and Municipal Council, Kota has no right whatsoever to give any permission to the plaintiff for raising construction.

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and the trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction but appeal filed by the defendant was partly allowed and while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court defendant was directed not to take any action in regard to the disputed land without due process of law.

None is present for the respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant on the point of admission.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that plaintiff-appellant is having a long settled possession over the disputed plot which he purchased from one Shri Bhanwar Lal in the year 1984 by a registered sale deed. It was then submitted that Bhanwar Lal had purchased the said land from Motiya Bai, therefore, the appellant is the rightful owner of the disputed land.

I have considered the above submissions. It is not disputed that no document in regard to the title of Motiya Bai over the disputed land has been produced whereas it was the case of the plaintiff that Motiya Bai purchased the said land from Urban Improvement Trust. The first appellate court taking into consideration all these relevant facts has not committed any illegality in holding that the appellant has not succeeded to prove the title and looking to his possession the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree and reasonable protection to the appellant was also accorded to the effect that without due process of law no action shall be taken by the defendant in regard to the suit land. I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment and decree and no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed at the stage in limine.