Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This is plaintiff's second appeal preferred against judgment and decree dated 04.11.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby judgment and decree dated 07.10.1998 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction, has been affirmed.

2. Dispute pertains to a piece of land measuring 50.5' in east-west and 23.6' in north-south, (total area measuring 132.4 square yard), which the plaintiff-appellant claims to have purchased by registered sale-deed on 13.12.1989 from one Nathu Singh for consideration of Rs.75,000/-. The plaintiff-appellant claims that he was put in possession of this plot by said Nathu Singh at the time of execution of the sale-deed. At that time, defendant Municipal Corporation, without issuing any notice and providing opportunity of hearing, tried to dispossess him on 13.05.1996, and removed the tin-shed as well as stone slabs, with which the boundary was constructed. In those facts, the suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction was filed before the trial court. Both the trial court and the first appellate court held that the appellant has failed to prove his title over the disputed land and for that matter, title of Nathu Singh, from whom he claims to have purchased the disputed land and declined the prayer of injunction.

3. According to the plaintiff, Nathu Singh is the descendant of Thakur Ratan Singh, whose 'vanshawali' (pedigree) is given in Para 1 of the memo of appeal. The disputed property is situated in Chowkri Vishwashwarji, Rasta Patwari Mohalla, Telipara, Jaipur, which was originally owned by Thikana Bhojara. The said property has been entered in the city survey record of Samvat 1925 at Serial No.140 and was shown in exclusive possession and ownership of Thakur Ratan Singh.

4. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff-appellants, has argued that the courts below failed to appreciate the registered sale-deed as also the oral evidence of the plaintiff in true perspective. They erred in law in holding that even in a suit for injunction, title over the land in dispute was required to be proved. It is settled proposition of law that the plaintiff can seek injunction on the basis of his possession even if he does not have any title over the land in dispute or has a defective title. In fact, the plaintiff-appellant has proved his title by submitting the registered sale-deed (Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2), which have remained un-rebutted, there being no denial by the defendants. In fact the Municipal Corporation did not even file the written statement nor did it produce any evidence contradicting assertion of the plaintiff. Learned courts below thus were wholly unjustified in not decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It is argued that learned courts below have failed to consider the case law cited before them by merely observing that they were not applicable to the facts of the present case.

5. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned Senior Advocate, has argued that the learned courts below should have drawn an adverse inference against the Municipal Corporation for not producing the register of the entries maintained by it with regard to its properties in form no.23 under Rule 46(b) of the Rajasthan Municipal Accounts Rules, 1963. This land was neither vacant nor Nazul land in view of the entries of the properties maintained by the State Government, as is evident by the survey conducted by the State in Samvat 1925. It could not vest in the Municipal Corporation in the year 1959 when the Rajasthan Municipal Act came into force since at that time, the land was not a government land as defined under Section 80 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. The Municipal Council was bound to make entries in the register with regard to all immovable properties in its possession, or purchased or acquired by it, in the register maintaine