The case reinforces that without valid proof of title and possession, a civil suit to restrain eviction is not maintainable, particularly when procedural requirements of notice under relevant legislation are not observed.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 05.02.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2013 (Smt. Tarabai & others Vs. Nagar Panchayat Rajim & others) by which the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs have been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2013 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 63-A/2008, has been set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 63-A/2008.

3. The instant Second Appeal has been admitted for hearing by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2025 on following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in reverting the well reasoned finding recorded by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the count that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title?

2. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in recording a finding regarding sale of suit land through auction by auctioner?

4. This Court on 27.07.2025 after hearing the parties, has framed an additional substantial question of law which reads as under:-

Whether without issuing notice to the Nagar Panchayat, the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable in view of rider contained in Section 319 of the Chhattisgarh Municipality Act, 1961?

5. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit on 17.11.2003 for restraining defendant No. 1/Nagar Panchayat, Rajim from taking action to acquire the Abadi land bearing Khasra No. 47 area admeasuring 0.29 acre situated near Mahamaya temple, Rajim (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) and also restraining defendant No. 1 from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property mainly contending that:-

(A) The suit property is in their ownership rights and possession as earlier the Post and Telegraph Department of Central Government has constructed a building over the suit property and the same was auctioned by the department which has been purchased by one Askaran S/o Maniklal Bangani from the Postal Department for sale consideration of Rs. 1675/- on 25.03.1953 and later on the same was sold to the plaintiffs by him by registered sale deed dated 28.02.1962 for sale consideration of Rs. 500/-. Since then they are in possession of the suit property.

(B) It is also case of the plaintiffs that they have already constructed boundary wall on the suit property in the year 2003 which was broken by defendant No. 2 who is counselor of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rajim. It is also case of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 passed a resolution on 21.10.2003 for acquiring the said land for construction of commercial complex wherein the counselor has raised objection but no consideration was made to it which has necessitated the plaintiffs to file the suit restraining the defendants from acquiring the suit property and restraining them to evict the plaintiffs from the suit property.

6. Defendants No. 1 to 9 have filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that:-

(A) The plaintiffs neither have given any specific description regarding the suit land in the memo of the Postal Department nor explained how the possession has been given to Late Askaran. It has also been contended that the plaintiffs have not filed any document showing the title of the Postal Department a