Hon'ble PANWAR, J.—This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2004 passed by District Judge, Bikaner (for short `the first appellate court' hereinafter) in Appeal Decree No. 30/04 whereby the appeal filed by plaintiff respondent Gordhan Dass came to be allowed and a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff respondent Gordhan Dass and against the appellant defendant Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner (for short `the UIT' hereinafter) was passed. Hence this second appeal by the appellant defendant UIT.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the judgment and decree of the first appellate court as also the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 1, Bikaner (for short `the trial Court' hereinafter) in Civil Original Suit No. 3/04 whereby the suit filed by plaintiff respondent Gordhan Dass was partly decreed in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 284/83.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that merely suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable unless a relief for declaration of title is sought. It is further contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit when the land for which the permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff respondent was subject matter of the acquisition under the provisions of Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short "the Act of 1959" hereinafter). It was also contended that the suit as such was not maintainable in absence of the State being a party to the suit. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff respondent failed to implead the State as party respondent and therefore, the suit is not maintainable for want of necessary party.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment and decree impugned and contended that the plaintiff respondent filed the suit for injunction on the basis of his possession over the disputed land through a registered sale deed and therefore there is no requirement for seeking relief of declaration of title. It was further contended that the registered sale deed carries presumption of genuineness and suit has been based by the plaintiff on the registered sale deed in his favour coupled with his possession and therefore, the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction is maintainable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Corporation of the City of Bangalore vs. Papaiah and another AIR 1989 SC 1809. Learned counsel for the respondent has further relied on decisions in P. Buchi Reddy and Ors. vs. Ananthula Sudhakar 1999 (suppl.) Civil Court Cases, 57 (A.P.), in Govind Anant Goltekar and Ors. vs. Dasharath Deoba Goltekar, AIR 2006 Bombay, 174 and a Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Smt.Yeshwanti Shrirang Pai and Ors. vs. Smt. Sunita Waman Pai, AIR 2006 Bombay, 289.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on decision on Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Subrammanya Shetty and Others vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2076 on the point of jurisdiction of Civil Court and in Pratap and another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others AIR 1996 SC 1296 as also in U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow and Others, AIR 1996 SC 1170.

7. Mr. Sridhar Purohit counsel for the respondent No. 1 has also relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and another vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (supra).

8. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the land which was subject matter of acquisition under Section 52 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document