Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, the plaintiff-appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 8th July, 1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Churu in Civil Appeal No. 58/90, whereby, the learned Judge has set aside the judgment and decree dated 20th January, 1989 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Civil Original Suit No. 125/84, by which, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff -appellant and restrained the respondents not to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant from the premises in question.

2. According to the facts of the case, a suit for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu in which, it was prayed that respondent-Municipal Council, Churu is illegally dispossessing him from the land in question though he is in possession of the said land from last many years. In the plaint it is specially stated by the plaintiff-appellant that his plot is situated in Ward No. 19, near temple of Mata Mancha Devi. Further, it is stated that as per document Savah Bahi No. 47 Samwat Year 1933 of page No. 15, the plaintiff-appellant is having patta in his favour issued on Miti Chet Badi 14 Samwat year 1933, therefore, he is holding valid title in his favour. But respondents are threatening him that they will dispossess from the plot in question, therefore, it is prayed that decree for permanent injunction may be passed against the Municipal Council, Churu and restrained the respondents not to evict or dispossess the plaintiff-appellant from the premises in question.

3. In the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant, written statement was filed by the respondent-Municipal Council, Churu and it is disputed that there is any title in favour of plaintiff. Further, it was also refuted that Savah Bahi, which is produced by the plaintiff alongwith suit, is not belonging to the plot in question and he is not in possession of the said plot.

4. After filing reply to the written statement, learned trial Court framed five issues which are as follows:

^^1- vk;k okni= ds iSjk la- 1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe fooknkLin oknh dh feyfd;rh o dcwtk gSa ftl ij ls izfroknhx.k mls vukf/kd`r :i ls csn[ky djuk pkgrs gSA

2- vk;k nkos dh ekfy;r de vkadh xbZ gSA

3- vk;k oknh dks okn vk/kkj o dkj.k izkIr ugha gSA

4- vk;k oknh dks ;g okn izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA

5- vuqrks"kA**

5. The learned trial Court after due trial and taking evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff-appellant and against the respondents whereby Municipal Council, Churu was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant from the disputed land in question.

6. The case of plaintiff-appellant before the trial Court was that he is residing upon the disputed land since his birth and he has constructed a pakka house and during pendency of the suit when temporary injunction was granted in favour of appellant-plaintiff then an appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Churu whereby the learned District Judge Churu while confirming the temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiff-appellant, restrained him to make any construction and passed an order for maintaining status quo upon the property in dispute till decision of the suit.

7. Against that order as per plaintiff-appellant a revision petition was preferred before this Court, the same was registered as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 250/1985 and was allowed on 28th October, 1985 in which, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-

"I, therefore, partly allow this revision and modify the order of the learned District Judge Churu dated 14.5.85 to the effect that the plaintiff shall be entitled to raise construction over the land in dispute on his giving an undertaking before the trial Court that he will demolish the construction reased by his in case the suit fails and he will raise construction only in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document