A person in peaceful and settled possession is entitled to protection against dispossession without due process, even from the rightful owner.

JUDGMENT

1. This civil second appeal has been preferred by the appellants-defendants (for brevity 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur (for brevity 'the appellate court') in Civil Regular Appeal No.103/2017 whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff (for brevity 'the plaintiff'), the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (East) Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity-'the learned trial court') dismissing the civil suit No.92/2003 (199/2000) for permanent injunction, have been revered.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants stating therein that he was in occupation of the residential house situated in Foos Ka Bangla, Badodiya Basti, Jaipur since the time of his ancestors i.e. for last about 100 years. It was averred that in the survey conducted by the defendants in the year 1971, he was assigned survey No.006287 of the subject property being in its possession. Alleging that the defendants wanted to forcibly dispossess him, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

3. Defendant No.1 in its written statement submitted that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was as encroacher.

4. Defendants No.2 to 4 in their joint written statement claiming ownership over the suit property have stated that his possession was as trespasser.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed three issues including the relief. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has been allowed by the learned appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.05.2018 and the suit has been decreed.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants would contend that indisputably the defendants are owners of the suit property and the plaintiff is occupying the same as trespasser. He submits that in view thereof, the suit simplicitor for injunction in absence of the relief of declaration was not maintainable.

7. Shri Rajesh Maharshi, learned AAG submits that in view of issuance of notice dated 18.11.1976 under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1975, possession of the plaintiff over the subject land could not have been recognised as peaceful and settled possession. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2018 be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned trial court be restored.

8. Heard. Considered.

9. While deciding the civil first appeal, learned Appellate Court has, on re-appreciation of the evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff is in peaceful and settled possession of the suit property since the year 1965 to the knowledge of the defendants and he has not been dispossessed since then. From the Exhibit-1, the certified copy of the Survey No.006287 conducted on 18.09.1971 by the defendants, it is revealed that the plaintiff was found in possession of the suit property since last seven years. Although, it is borne out from the record that the plaintiff was served upon with a notice dated 18.11.1976 under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956; but, admittedly, neither any action in pursuance thereof was taken by the defendants nor, any reason has been assigned for such inaction. Rather, from the other documents on record including the electricity bills and note-sheet of the Estate Officer, it was found that the possession of the petitioner is long, settled and peaceful. The Hon'ble Apex Court as in case of Rame Gowda (D) By LRs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By LRs. & Anr AIR 2004 SC 4069 held as under:-

"8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession a