A trespasser's possession is good against the whole world except the true owner.

1. - This is a second appeal by defendants Nos. 3 & 4 against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Paragraph in Civil First Appeal No. 36 of 1970 dated September 6, 1974 reversing the decree by the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 70 of 1966 on March 25, 1970 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos 1 to 3 for permanent injunction against the appellants and respondents Nos. 4 & 5.

2. Facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are that Madanlal Tamboli plaintiff instituted a suit on April 20, 1966 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh for permanent injunction against the appellants and respondents Nos. 4 & 5 for restraining them from interfering in his possession over a small plot of land measuring 13' east-west and 11 feet north-south located in village Begun with boundaries specified at the foot of para No. 1 of the plaint and from removing the betel shop carried on there by him. It was alleged by the plaintiff that this plot of land was granted to him by Municipal Committee Begun under a Bapi Patta dated March 16, 1959 after receipt of Nazrana and he was in its possession since then. There is a Chabutra made from Patties over this plot of land where upon the plaintiff carries on his betel shop. Subsequently this area formed part of Gram Panchayat Begun. The Gram Panchayat issued notice to the plaintiff on August 17, 1965 and on March 15, 1966 requiring the plaintiff to remove his possession over this plot of land. The plaintiff alleged that he was in lawful possession over the plot of land in pursuance of the Bapi Patta granted to him by Municipal Board Begun and the defendants have no right to interfere in his possession. So far as defendants NOS. 3 & 4 are concerned, it was alleged that they were instigating the Panchayat Samiti Begun to get the possession of the plaintiff removed from this plot of land. The plaintiff bad impleaded Gram Vikas Panchayat Begun and Panchayat Samiti Begun respectively as defendants Nos. 1 & 2 in the suit. The appellants were impleaded as defendants Nos. 3 & 4.

3. Gram Vikas Panchayat Begun and Panchayat Samiti Begun remained ex parte and the suit was contested by the appellants. The case set up by the appellants was that the plaintiff in collusion with Chosar Singh Bahel, the then Chairman of Municipal Committee Begun, obtained wrongly a Patta in respect of the disputed plot of land. On the protest from the residents of village Begun, the State Government by its order dated December 11, 1959 withdraw the rights from the Municipal Committees to dispose of the land and of the sales made after February 16, 1959 were cancelled. It was also pleaded that possession over the disputed plot of land was not delivered to the plaintiff under the Patta. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff only illegally occupied this plot of land on August 15, 1965 where upon the appellants moved to the Panchayat Samiti Begun and the Panchayat Samiti passed an order on August 22, 1966 for removing the possession of the plaintiff from the suit plot of land, It was stated that Gram Panchayat Begun is fully competent to remove the possession of the plaintiff who was only a trespasser over this land. The appellants further stated that there existed a temple in front of this land and the plaintiff wanted to injure the religious feelings of the worshipers of the temple by borrowing the view of the temple by placing an almirah to run his betel shop. Lastly, it was pleaded that the Bapi Patta was unstamped and unregistered and, therefore, the same was inadmissible in evidence.

4. The suit was tried by Civil Judge, Chittorgarh and he decided it on March 25, 1970. The Civil Judge held that the Bapi Patta Ex 1 dated 16th March 1959 was unstamped and unregistered documents and, therefore, it could not convey title in favour of the plaintiff over the suit plot of land. According to the trial court, the sale price was more than Rs. 100/- and, therefore, the Patta required regi