The necessity of filing a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief when the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession.

Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2017 passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction averring that he was in settled possession over the suit land for the last more than 60 years, since the time of his ancestors, and has raised construction over it. Since the defendant respondents were charging development cess illegally, the plaintiff-appellant had filed a civil suit in public interest against the defendant-respondents in which a decree of permanent injunction was passed restraining the defendant-respondents from charging the development cess. As per the plaintiff-appellant, because of this the defendant-respondents had become inimical towards him and had sent a notice calling upon the plaintiff-appellant to demolish the construction over the suit property and threatened to demolish the same after issuing notice under section 235 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1974. It was averred that the plaintiff-appellant submitted a reply to the notice wherein it was explained that he was in settled possession of the suit property since the time of his fore-fathers and he was not raising any new construction but merely getting a wall repaired as the same had fallen down during the rainy season. It was further pleaded that the Tehsildar, Narnaul and Naib Tehsildar, Narnaul had also inspected the site on 29.05.2008 and 04.06.2008 and the reports submitted by them supported the stand of the plaintiff-appellant. According to the plaintiff-appellant as per policy of the Government the land which is in settled possession of a person can be sold to that person and that the plaintiff-appellant was ready to deposit the government charges for purchasing the suit property. Hence, the suit. In their written statement the defendant-respondents raised preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability, concealment of material facts etc. On merits it was denied that the plaintiff-appellant was in settled possession over the suit property for the last more than 60 years rather it was pleaded that he had no concern with the ownership of the suit property. As per the defendant-respondents the suit property was part Khewat No.1750 Khatoni No.2519 Khasra No.4724 measuring 29 bighas 2 biswas which was owned by the Municipal Committee and the plaintiff-appellant had encroached upon the same and had raised construction despite issuance of notice to him.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

1. Whether plaintiff is coming in possession over the land detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint from the last 60 years from the time of his forefathers as alleged in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the defendants are entitled to demolish the construction of the plaintiff in compliance of notice bearing No. 620 dated 16.6.2008 issued by the defendants to the plaintiff? OPD

3. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not affixed proper court fees ? OPD

5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the court ? OPD

8. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35A CPC ? OPD

9. Relief.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2014. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree 06.03.2017. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the p