JAIN, J.—The legal representatives of Shri Kishan original plaintiff have filed this appeal against the appellate decree dated August 20, 74 of the Additional District Judge, Udaipur, affirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 12-4-67 passed in Civil suit No. 80/1964.

2. There is some property known as Talia in Mouza Fatehnagar Tehsil Mavli. This property has been shown in the map Ex. 2 attached to the plaint. Shri Kishan plaintiff alleged that the property shown in pink colour towards the south of the Talia had been constructed by him and a portion of the Talia towards the north shown bounded by dotted red lines is lying vacant. But according to him the foundation in that part of the land has been dug and filled up to the plinth level. The land thus shown within red dotted lines, is the land in question. It measures approximately East-West 52 and 30 North-South. The plaintiff stated that he is the owner of the entire land and has been in possession since Samvat year 2003 It has been alleged that on 15-7-74 the defendants have trespassed the suit land by force in the supposed claim that the suit land was allotted to them by Allotment Committee, Fatehnagar. The plaintiff further alleged that this was an encroachment on the part of the defendants. The Allotment Committee Fatehnagar had no right to allot the said land to them and no compensation was ever paid to the plaintiff of the said land. He accordingly prayed for the removal of the encroachment and for possession of the suit land. This suit was instituted on 21-7-1964.

3. The defendants, namely, Mannalal, Lalchand, and Sunderlal sons of Nathu Lal, Kanhaiyalal son of Hamirmaji and Fatehlal sons of Lal Chand, by a joint written statement dated 20-9-1964, resisted the suit. They denied the ownership of the plaintiff of the suit land. It was also pleaded that some of the land was acquired and in exchange of the same the Land Acquisition Officer, Udaipur, gave plot No. 10A to Poonam Chand, Nathulal and Kanhaiya Lal, who were real brothers. Poonam Chand and Nathulal having died, one-third share of the plot No. 10A belonged to the sons of Poonam Chand, the other one-third has gone to the sons of Nathulal, who are defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the remaining one-third of the land is that of defendant No. 4 Kanhaiya Lal. By way of compensation, it was alleged, a sum of Rs. 1,500/-was paid by these allottees. In pursuance of this allotment the defendants are said to be in possession of the land in question. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The Civil Judge, Udaipur, tried the case on the various issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. The trial Judge held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit land was owned by him and he has been in possession of the same since Samvat year 2003. He also came to the conclusion that there is no cogent evidence to establish the suit land was acquired by the Government and was allotted to the defendants. He decided this issue against the defendants. In view of his findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 he dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs by his judgment dated 12-4-1967. Being dissatisfied with his decree the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur, held, in agreement with the trial court, that there is no evidence to establish the ownership of the plaintiff and there has been no dispossession of the plaintiff at the instance of the defendants. The appeal Judge, however, reversed the finding on issue No. 5 and on consideration of various documents concluded that the disputed plot was duly acquired by the State Government and it was subsequently allotted to the defendants. Eventually the appeal was dismissed by his judgment dated 20th August, 1974. Dissatisfied by this judgment and decree the legal representatives of plaintiff have come in second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset argued that the plaintiff Shrikishan purchased the suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document