RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.8.1994 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Civil First Appeal No.7/92 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and upheld the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1992 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Salumber in Civil Original Case No.17/81 whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.1981 the appellant filed a civil suit for injunction before the trial court on the ground that he is in peaceful possession of disputed land and the said land does not fall within the jurisdiction of respondent- Municipal Board, Salumber, but the defendant, without jurisdiction, is going to dispossess him from disputed land, so injunction may be granted against the respondent-defendant. The defendants disputed all the facts mentioned in suit and contended that the disputed land is situated in municipal area and Municipal Board, Salumber is owner of the disputed land and plaintiff has made encroachment over the said land, so the defendant removed the encroachments made by the plaintiff on the disputed land on 3.11.1971, however, the plaintiff again unauthorisedly gained possession of the said property for which the defendants registered a case against the plaintiff. The defendant also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff did not give two months' notice to the defendant under Section 279 of the Municipalities Act. The defendants also stated in their reply that they have right to remove the encroachments made over the said land and prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be rejected.

3. The trial court after going through the material and evidence available on record framed the followed issues :-

1- vk;k okn ds isjk uEcj&1 esa of.kZr IyksV vkjkth uEcj 1203 fcyk uke ljdkj 48 QqV Xkq.kk 44 QqV dk oknh ds dCts ,oa vf/kdkj dk gS\A & oknh

2- vk;k ;g oknxzLr IyksV uxjikfydk {ks= esa gS] vkSj gYds vkcknh esa Hkwfe gksdj uxjikfydk ds LokfeRo dh gS] ftl ij oknh us vukf/kd`r vfrdze.k dj j[kk gS\ &izfroknh

3- vk;k okn ds vuqlkj fcykuke ljdkj dh Hkwfe ds fo"k; esa bl U;k;ky; dks ;g okn lquus dk vf/kdkj ugh gS\ &izfroknh

4- vk;k bl oknxzLr IyksV dh dher 20]000@& 0 ls de ugha gksus ls bl U;k;ky; dks ;g okn lquus dk vf/kdkj ughs gS\ &izfroknh

5- vk;k okng }kjk uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 271 ds rgr nks ekg dk uksfVl fn, fcuk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSa\ &izfroknh

6- vk;k izfroknh dks /kkjk 203 uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e ds rgr fcuk nhokuh vnkyr ls fMdzh izkIr fd, oknh dk dCtk gVkus dk vf/kdkj gS\ &izfroknh

7- vk;k oknh }kjk vius LokfeRo ,oa LoRo dh ?kks"k.kk dh benkn ekaxs cxSj vius vkidks vfrdze.kh crkrs gq, ;g fu’ks/kkKk dk okn ykus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ughs gSa] tcfd oknh ds fo:) uxjikfydk }kjk fof/kor~ djds vfrdze.k gVk;k tk jgk gS\ &izfroknh

8- nknjlhA^^

4. The plaintiff adduced three witnesses and the defendant also adduced three witnesses. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decided the issues No.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 against the plaintiff and issue No.5 against the defendant and dismissed the suit vide order dated 1.6.1992 in Original Civil Suit No.17/1981.

5. After dismissal of the said suit, the appellant feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the District Judge, Udaipur, the same being Civil First Appeal No.7/1992 was thereafter transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur.

6. By order dated 22.8.1994, the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Salumber. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, the appellant filed this second appeal before this Court. In this second appeal the coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of admitting this appeal determined the following substantial questions of