IMPORTANT POINT
Impugned concurrent findings cannot be interfered unless perverse.
Burden of proof lies on party making a stand.
Ingredients for permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

This appeal is filed by the defendant against the final judgment and order dated 03.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No.70 of 1989 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the first Appellate Court dated 17.04.1989 in Appeal Civil No. 19 of 1988 arising out of Civil Suit No.28 of 1983 decided on 06.09.1988 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar.

2. Facts of the case are simple so also the point involved in the appeal. They, however, need mention in brief infra.

3. The appellant is Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar (Rajasthan). The appellant is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the aforementioned civil suit out of which this appeal arises.

4. The dispute relates to a small piece of land (100x100 sq. ft.) situated at Gaushala Block, Ward No.10 (earlier known as 'E Block'), Raisingh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land").

5. The respondent (plaintiff) claiming to be the holder and in possession of the suit land on the strength of Patta issued in favour of his grand father - Pokhar Ram by the appellant herein way back in the year 1957 vide Resolution No.7 dated 13.02.1957 filed a suit against the appellant out of which this appeal arises seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing him from the suit land.

6. In substance, the case of the respondent, as set out in the plaint, was that the appellant - Nagar Palika had originally allotted the suit land to the respondent's grandfather - Pokhar Ram as back as in 1957 against the payment of consideration which had duly paid by Pokhar Ram to the appellant vide receipt No.51 dated 18.03.1957.

7. It was alleged that Pokhar Ram then constructed his hut on the suit land and continued to live therein during his lifetime. On his death, the respondent's father continued to live therein during his lifetime and then on his death, the respondent inherited the suit land/hut and continued to remain in its occupation till the date of filing of the suit.

8. According to the respondent, the need to file the suit arose because he had some apprehension that the appellant-Nagar Palika which had taken out a drive to oust some encroachers from the land belonging to Nagar Palika in the Municipal area may dispossess the respondent also from the suit land treating him as an encroacher on the suit land. It was for this reason, the respondent filed the civil suit to seek permanent injunction against the appellant in relation to the suit land on the strength of Patta already granted in favour of his predecessor-in-title by the appellant.

9. The appellant filed its written statement. While denying the respondent's claim, the appellant inter alia alleged that the respondent's grandfather was given some other land, that the grant so made in relation to the said land was cancelled and the money received was also refunded to him, that the suit land is a Nagar Palika land and the respondent with the help of some employees of the Nagar Palika got the suit land un-authorizedly allotted to him, and lastly, the suit land is needed for public purpose.

10. Issues were framed. Parties adduced evidence. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.09.1988, dismissed the suit. The respondent (plaintiff), felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment/decree dated 17.04.1989, allowed the appeal and while setting aside of the judgment/decree of the Trial Court decreed the respondent's suit and accordingly granted permanent injunction, as prayed by the respondent, against the appellant in relation to the suit land.

11. The First Appellate Court held that the respondent's grandfather was granted Patta in relation to the suit land by the appellant; that the appellant failed to prove that it was cancelled and pursuant thereto the responde