A.K. MATHUR, J.—This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Merta dated 5. 12. 1975.

2. The brief facts giving rise to his case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit in the court of Munisif Merta for declaration that the Nohra situated in village Toonkaliya the boundaries of which have been given in para 1 of the plaint as under:-

East : Bhakar of Mataji and thereafter village Pond.

West : Pole and vacant piece of land of plaintiff Hari Singh and others.

North : Bas of Bhambhis and Nohra of Gangaram.

South : Nohra of Hardevsingh and Ranjeetsingh.

3. It is of the plaintiffs and it has been in possession of the plaintiffs since long back. Thus, he prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over this Nohra and that the order of the Gram Panchayat, Talanpur dated 14.6 1966 may be quashed. In the plaint it is stated that this Nohra which is the subject matter of the suit is the property of the plaintiffs from the time of his fore-fathers and came to his share in partition. He is in possession of the same since then. Defendants No. 2 to 4 were inimically disposed of towards him and in order to deprive him the suit land they moved an application before the defendant No. 1, Gram Panchayat, Talanpur with the false allegation that the plaintiffs had encroached upon the public way and the defendant No.l, Gram Panchayat, Talanpur by its order dated 14.6.1966 declared the land of the North of the plaintiff to be public way and ordered the demolition of the walls and also fined the plaintiff Rs.11/-. This order has been challenged on the ground of mala fide and being without jurisdiction. It is also stated that he raised a pucca walls about 8 to 8-1/2 on all the four sides. As the defendants were trying to demolish the wall and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore he filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The defendants in their written statement submitted that this was a public way for the villagers to reach village Ponds and it was never in possession of the plaintiffs. On 26.5.1966 the plaintiff started constructing walls on the eastern and western sides of this plot of land and defendants No. 2 to 4 made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Talanpur complaining about this obstruction. On 30.5.1966 the Sarpanch and members of the Gram Panchayat inspected the disputed land and found that the plaintiff encroached over this land. These after, on 14.6.1966 the Gram Panchayat, after hearing the plaintiff, directed removal of this encroachment and imposed a fine on the plaintiff. It was also submitted that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor was in possession of this land at any point of time, it was also stated that the documents filed by the plaintiff are not genuine and they are inadmissible in evidence.

4. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti and the same was dismissed and thereafter a revision petition was filed before the Collector and the same was also dismissed. The plea was taken that the order of the Gram Panchayat merged into the order of the Panchayat Samiti and the Panchayat Samiti is not a party in the suit. A plea of limitation was also raised.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following seven issues were framed:-

^^¼1½ vk;k vthZ nkok dk fQdjk ua- 1 esa ntZ ikM+kSl fcpyk uksgjk eqnbZ dh fefYd;r ,oe~ caV dk dnheh dCtk lqn gS\ ih

¼2½ vk;k eqnk;yk ua- 1 xzke iapk;r Vkyuiqj dk QSlyk fnukad 14-6-66 ln~Hkkouk jfgr ,oa fcuk vf/kdkj gS\ ih

¼3½ vk;k eqnbZ eqnk;yk ds fo:0 gqDe bErukbZ nokeh ikus dk gdnkj gS\ ih

¼4½ vk;k ukSgjk eqruktk rkykc tkus dk lkoZtfud jkLrs dk fgLlk gS vkSj eqnbZ us fnukad 26-5-66 dks iwoZ ifpe o mÙkj nf{k.k dh Hkhrs cuokdj dCtk dj fy;k\

¼5½ vk;k nkok fe;kn ckgj gS\ Mh

¼6½ vk;k iapk;r lfefr nkok gktk es ykteh Qjhd eqdíek gS\

¼7½ nknjlh\

6. The learned Munsif, Merta decided issues No. 1,2 and 3 against the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document