Point of Law: wherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own, the decree passed is to be viewed as the combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6/5/2019 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the Municipal Council for permanent injunction was partly decreed.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, all sons of Mangal Singh, with the averments that by registered sale deed dated 10/4/1957 Shri Karni Singh Bahadur of Bikaner sold his ‘Shikarkhana’ ad measuring 42560 sq. ft.; boundaries of the land were indicated in the plaint. It was claimed that ever since the ‘Shikarkhana’ was purchased by the plaintiffs on 10/4/1957, they were in possession of the same and the possession continued; the plaintiffs have constructed a petrol pump and are residing therein along with their families. The present boundaries of ‘Shikarkhana’ were also indicated. It was alleged that on 4/9/2007, employees of Municipal Council marked the petrol pump and the residence, on inquiry it was indicated that the land in question was part of road and the construction would be demolished and road would be constructed. The said contention of Municipal Council was disputed by the plaintiffs by filing a representation inter alia claiming that they have not trespassed over any road or Government land and, therefore, the construction be not demolished. It was inter alia claimed that the petrol pump and the house is situated on a duly purchased land and the Municipal Council has no legal right to demolish the said construction. Based on the above averments, the following relief was claimed:

^^Áfroknh ds fo:) LFkkbZ O;kns'k bl vk'k; dk tkjh fd;k tkos fd og okn&i= dh pj.k la[;k 1 o 2 esa of.kZr oknhx.k ds Hkw[k.M o fuekZ.k ds mi;ksx o miHkksx esa fdlh rjg ls gLr{ksi ugha djs ,oa oknhx.k ds fuekZ.k dks {kfrxzLr ugha djsa ,oa oknhx.k ds Hkw[k.M o edku esa lM+d dk fuekZ.k ugha djsaA**

3. The defendant filed written statement and disputed the averments contained in the plaint. The boundaries indicated in the plaint were denied. It was claimed that the land in question belongs to Municipal Council and that under the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court, the encroachments on the roads and other places were being removed and as the plaintiffs have encroached on the 55 ft. road, the same was being removed. The contents of the sale deed were also disputed with the averments that the Power of Attorney given by Maharaja Karni Singh for ‘Shikarkhana’ did not indicate any area and as such the land belonging to Municipal Council could not be transferred and that the measurements indicated in the sale deed were imaginary. Certain additional pleas were also raised.

4. The trial court framed seven issues and after evidence was led, as noticed hereinbefore, the suit was partly decreed with the following relief and observations:

^^vkns'k

oknhx.k dk okn fo:) Áfroknh ckcr LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk fuEu Ádkj ls fMØh fd;k tkrk gS %&

¼1½ Áfroknh oknh ds f'kdkj[kkuk DokVZj dh 285 oxZ xt Hkwfe esa mlds Hkw[k.M ij fd, x, fuekZ.k ds mi;ksx] miHkksx esa gLr{ksi ugha djsxk] fuekZ.k dks {kfrxzLr ugha djsxk vkSj bl 285 oxZ xt f'kdkj[kkuk DokVZj dh Hkwfe ij cus edku esa ls dksbZ lM+d vkfn fufeZr ugha djsxkA

ysfdu ;gka ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd oknhx.k us f'kdkj[kkuk DokVZj dh Hkwfe 285 oxZ xt ls ckgj vfrØe.k dj vf/kd fuekZ.k dj j[kk gS] mlds lEcU/k esa oknhx.k }kjk okn&i= esa pkgk x;k LFkkbZ O;kns'k dk vuqrks"k ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSa vkSj bl lhek rd oknhx.k dk okn&i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA [kpkZ eqdnek i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA ipkZ fMØh tkjh gksA**

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants – all the plaintiffs i.e. five brothers, filed the present first appeal. By order dated 4/11/2009, a coordinate bench of this Court ordered status quo with regard to the land in dispute to be maintained by the parties and the matter was ordered to be listed for hearing in due course.

6. It appears that on 27/3/2019 the respondents filed an application for early hearing of the appeal, copy whereof was served on the