The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove their title after the plaintiff proves possessory title, and a threat to take action does not require the plaintiff to seek a declaration of title.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for mere injunction against the defendant-appellant alleging that the property in dispute, which is a small piece of land having one small cottage was originally belonging to the plaintiff's father and after the death of the plaintiff's s father now belonging to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the cottage was constructed about 15 years ago. On 17th Dec., 1997 the employees of the defendant-UIT came on spot and threaten the plaintiff that the defendants will demolish the construction raised on the property in dispute. In these circumstance, the suit for injunction was filed.The defendant no 1-UIT, Udaipur submitted written statement and denied the title of the plaintiff and submitted that the structure is falling in the Araji No. 399 having measurement 0.6050 hectare and the plaintiff encroached upon the piece of land of this Araji No. 399. Therefore, the defendant has right to remove the encroachment.

3. The trial court while deciding issue no. 1 held that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute and though the plaintiff pleaded that cottage was constructed 15 years ago, but his possession was old 30 to 40 years. It is also observed that the defendants UIT could not prove that land in dispute is falling in Amp No. 399. In these circumstances, the trial court granted the decree for injunction against the appellant.

4. The appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court dated 20th May, 2000 by judgment and decree dated 19th April, 2003.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant vehemently submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable as the plaintiff has not sought relief of declaration and filed the suit for injunction only. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Gulam Mohd. Qureshi v. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, reported in 1999 (2) WLC (Raj.) 595 .

6. I considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and the judgment relied upon of this court. The facts of the case referred above are quite different and makes the complete distinction between the two cases, case in hand and case of Gulam Mohd. Qureshi (supra). In the case of Gulam Mohd. Qureshi (supra), the plaintiff was claiming old possession over the property. The plaintiff also claimed that he was entitled for regularisation of the plot in view of the fact that the plot is situated in a Kachi Basti' and plaintiffs name was entered in the Serve List. The Jaipur Development Authority initiated proceedings against the plaintiff by serving a notice under Section 32 and 33 of the Jaipur Development Act, 1982. In a case, where one is seeking regularization, he cannot claim adverse possession against the person or the authority from whom he is seeking title and In the case where, once the title is admitted of other party still he wants to take a plea of ownership and if such plea is permissible, then he is required to seek declaration of his title by filing suit for declaration of title. In that case the relief of declaration may be necessary. It Is not necessary in each and every case of threat, that person in peaceful possession should get the declaration of his title if can otherwise protect his possession. A person in possession can protect his possession despite the fact that he may not be owner of the property. In each and every case the defendant cannot by his act create a reason to compel party in possession to seek declaration of his so title.

7. In this case, the plaintiff in his entire plaint stated that the plot in dispute was in possession since plaintiff's father time and construction of the cottage over the plot is 15 years old and the defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff and demolish the cottage of the plaintiff. The s defendant submitted in written statement that they are owner of the property and, therefore, the defend