A counter claim must be directed against the plaintiff, and lack of evidence for ownership results in dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment & degree dated 31.03.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.l, Udaipur, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and judgment & decree dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.l, North, Udaipur has been confirmed.

2. The suit was filed by Hari Ram - respondent No.l against Urban Improvement Trust CUIT'), its officer and appellant - Lehru Lal for permanent injunction. It was claimed that the plot of land, which was in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff was situated at Jhadol Road, which was purchased by the plaintiff from Gram Panchayat, Sisarma and is in occupation of the plaintiff. It was claimed that around the plot the plaintiff has constructed stone wall alongwith two rooms and kitchen. It was indicated that proceedings were initiated by the UIT qua the said plot, however, finding the possession as legal, the proceedings were dropped. It was alleged that the defendants and their employees came at the site on 21.05.1987 and demolished the wall and part of the house without any right and information, for which, the plaintiff was filing separate suit for compensation. It was alleged that the plaintiff was being threatened that either he himself should remove the construction or the same would be removed by the defendants. Based on the said averments, permanent injunction against the defendants was sought.

3. Written statement was filed by the defendant - UIT denying the averments made in the plaint. It was claimed that the land comprised in Araji No.809 is allotted to the defendant, which was Bilanam Government land prior to the allotment made on 20.01.1987. It was indicated that from the record of the Gram Panchayat, Sisarma, the plot as claimed by the plaintiff was neither allotted nor sold. If any construction has been raised by the plaintiff, the same was as trespasser, for which, he has no right. As the plaintiff is a trespasser, the defendants have right to remove him. It was indicated that the land comprised in Araji No.809 min was 43 Bigha 18 Biswa, which was a Government land prior to 20.01.1987, the same was never allotted to Panchayat and was also not abadi land and the same has been allotted to UIT by the revenue department on 20.01.1987 and as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The appellant- defendant No.3 Lehru filed a written statement disputing the right of the plaintiff to file the suit. It was denied that any plot was sold by Gram Panchayat, Sisarma to the plaintiff, the patta relied on was fabricated. It was claimed that the property belonged to Maufidars and the same was transferred by a legal patta to Nandaji, defendant No.3's father, which continuous to be in possession of the defendant No.3. It was alleged that the plaintiff has filed a suit in collusion with the defendant Nos.l & 2, who have no right in the plot and as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

5. The defendant No.3 - appellant, in additional plea / counter claim, raised in the written statement claimed that he was entitled to retain possession of the plot in question and as such, sought injunction against the defendant No.l from interfering in his possession.

The trial court framed six issues.

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined. On behalf of the defendants, five witnesses were examined alongwith documentary evidence.

7. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has neither produced the patta nor got it exhibited. No documents pertaining to getting possession of the plot was produced. Further no receipt pertaining to allotment was produced and as such, the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed plot was allotted by Gram Panchayat, Sisarma. Qua the claim made by the defendant No.3, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant No.3 failed to produce any proof that the land in question belo