1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. The plaintiff alleged that he is owner of the property in dispute for which the Gram Panchayat issued patta in his favour on 15.4.1988 on payment of Rs. 85/-. According to the plaintiff, he constructed a room over the plot in dispute and he was in occupation of the plot till 5.5.1996. On 5.5.1996, the defendants and some other persons came on the plot of the plaintiff and started demolishing the boundary of the plot. The plaintiff lodged FIR and thereafter filed suit for permanent injunction.

3. The defendants submitted written statement and denied the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute. The defendants also submitted that on the date of issuance of the patta, the plaintiff was minor and his father was Sarpanch who without following any procedure of law and with intention to grab the plot, fabricated the patta. It is also submitted that the said patta was subsequently cancelled by the Gram Panchayat. It is also submitted that Rule 266 was not followed.

4. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2001. Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants preferred first appeal which was allowed by the first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 2.3.2002 after holding that the plaintiff was minor at the time when the patta was issued and his father was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and he not only participated in the proceedings but even signed the patta. After considering the entire facts and relevant law, the court below held that no title was conveyed by the patta and quashed the patta.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that the first appellate court committed serious error of law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. It is submitted that there is no bar against for issuing patta by Sarpanch in favour of his own son. It is further submitted that in a suit for mere injunction, the court should not have considered the legality and validity of the patta.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that a writ petition was filed by the plaintiff before this Court being SBC Writ Petition No. 6798/2003 which was decided by this Court by order dated 7.7.2005. In the said writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the Court's order dated 17.12.2003, the petitioner has deposited requisite amount and according to. the petitioner, his case was considered for allotment of land in question but the matter was not decided by that time, therefore, after taking note of the above facts about the order of this Court dated 17.12.2003 and the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the concerned authority to pass appropriate orders in relation to the claim of the petitioner about the allotment of the land in question in accordance with law within the stipulated period.

7. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the forgery is writ large and, therefore, no equitable relief could have been granted in favour of the appellant by the trial court and the appellate court rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It is also submitted that the forgery vitiates all the proceedings and in this case, the patta is null and void. It is also submitted that the patta can be declared void only on the basis of the fact that the plaintiff's own father participated in the patta proceedings and signed the patta issued in favour of his minor son. It is also submitted that the plaintiff himself founded his claim in the suit on the basis of said patta, therefore, now he cannot say that the Court should not have looked into validity of patta.

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the t