When the plaintiff's title to the property is in dispute and there is a threat of dispossession, the plaintiff should sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2015 passed in Civil First Appeal No.16/12 (249/07) by the Court of Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.90/07 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City (West), Jaipur whereby and whereunder the civil suit for permanent injunction instituted by appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for both parties, perused impugned judgments and scanned the record.

3. It appears from the pleadings of parties that the plaintiff has come out with a case that a peace of land relating to Plot No.6 measuring 1514.23 Sq. yards was allotted to him by Mitra Grah Nirman Cooperative Society Limited, Jaipur and he acquired the ownership and possession of that plot. The plaintiff himself has admitted in the plaint that the possession of his plot was given by him to defendant No.1 Gopal lal for the purpose of establishing and running a lathe machine. Thus, it is undisputed fact as per plaint that plaintiff is out of possession of the suit plot, on the date of institution of present suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has asked for a decree of permanent injunction stating inter alia that defendant No.1, having collusion with other defendants No.2 to 5, is inclined to raise construction over the suit plot and therefore, he prayed for passing a decree for injunction in his favour that defendants be restrained not to raise construction nor to obstruct the plaintiff from his movement in the suit plot and further defendants be restrained not to sell, alienate or otherwise transfer the suit plot.

4. Defendants have submitted a joint written statement and categorically denied the allotment of suit plot in favour of plaintiff as also contended that plaintiff is neither owner nor ever remained in possession of suit plot and his suit for permanent injunction is wholly against the law and not maintainable. Defendants also contended in their written statement that as a matter of fact, six separate plots were allotted to defendants vide allotment letters dated 28.07.1988 and details of measurement of plots and the persons to whom these plots were allotted by the Mitra Grah Nirman Cooperative Society, have been mentioned in para No.4 of special pleas of written statement.

5. It is clear from pleadings of parties that the plaintiff’s claim of ownership over the suit plot is disputed and has already come under clouds once the same was challenged by defendants and where the defendants have claimed their ownership on the suit plot on the basis of allotment letters as mentioned in the written statement. However, the plaintiff persuaded with the present suit, which was only in the nature of permanent injunction.

6. Learned trial court framed issues and recorded evidence of both the parties. Thereafter, the trial court has recorded a finding of fact that it is not proved that the suit plot having an area of 1514.23 Sq. yards was allotted to plaintiff and the suit plot ever remained in possession of plaintiff. The trial court with such fact finding, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007.

7. Plaintiff preferred the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007. The first appellate court re-heard the matter as a whole and observed in its judgment and decree dated 18.04.2015 that the scope of present suit is confined to permanent injunction and the inquiry of title/ownership of parties is not warranted. However, in order to examine the issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, the first appellate court examined the factum of ownership and possession of plaintiff in that context. The first appellate court too observed that plaintiff is neither owner nor