Honble CHAUHAN, J.–Running from court to court for almost thirty years, trying to save his four shops and two staircases, the appellant has challenged the order dated 18.9.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Alwar whereby the learned Judge has accepted the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1993 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3 and has remanded the case back to the learned trial Court. The appellant as the plaintiff in the case is, hence, forced to face a de novo trial even after the lapse of almost thirty years. His ordeal is unending, his patience is frayed, his faith in the judiciary is shaken.

(2). The brief facts of the case are that on 21.3.1977, the appellant-plaintiff, Niranjan Lal, had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the U.I.T. In the plaint, the appellant had pleaded that plot of land measuring 30 x 120 situated at Station Road, Mangal Marg. Alwar was originally owned by one Shiv Lal Singh, a ``Jagirdar. On 8.2.1956 one Heera Lal Saini purchased the said plot from Shiv Lal Singh by a registered sale deed. Subsequently, on 4.1.1962 Heera Lal sold the said property, through a registered sale deed, to Smt. Vidhya Devi and Smt. Mishri Devi. Thereafter, on 23.9.1971 Smt. Vidhya Devi sold the property in question to the appellant by a registered sale deed after taking a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. The Patta of the said property was also handed over to the appellant. Since Smt. Vidhya Devi had applied for permission for construction on the said plot from the U.I.T. and since the said permission was granted by the U.I.T., the permission was also handed over to the appellant. In accordance with the permission granted by the U.I.T., the appellant constructed four shops and two staircases at the cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiff had also pleaded that on 8.2.1956 when Shiv Lal Singh sold the said plot to Heera Lal, the District Collector had filed a suit in the Civil Court. But, the suit was decreed in favour of Heera Lal. The appellant further pleaded in his plaint that Heera Lal had been issued a notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act. But vide order dated 4.5.1962, the Tehsildar has treated Heera Lal as the owner of the land and as such discharged the notice issued under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act. He further contended that the U.I.T. was bent on demolishing the shops without issuing any notice to him. Therefore, a declaration should be made that the appellant is the owner and is in possession of the land in question. Moreover, the defendants should be restrained by way of perpetual injunction that they would not demolish the construction made by the appellant.

(3). The defendants-respondents, the U.I.T. and the others, filed their written statements before the learned Civil Court where in they denied the knowledge of the sale deed dated 8.6.1956 in favour of Heera Lal and disputed his right to sell Nazul land to Smt. Vidhya Devi and Smt. Mishri Devi. The defendants further averred that the construction amounted to an encroachment of government land. Hence, they have a right to demolish the said construction.

(4). On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as ten issues. In order to prove his case, the appellant examined eleven witnesses. Despite several opportunities being given to the respondents-defendants, the U.I.T. did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove its contentions. Therefore, vide judgment dated 30.9.1993 the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant and declared him to be in possession of and to be the owner of the property in question and restrained the respondents from demolishing the property of the appellant, it further restrained the respondents from interfering in the case or construction on the land in question.

(5). Since the defendants-respondents were aggrieved by the said judgment, they filed an appeal. Vide judgment dated 8.9.19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document