[2025:RJ-JD:51964]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 447/2019

L.Rs. of Khoobchand

1/1. Pramod Kumar Sharma son of Late Shri Khoobchand aged

about 42 years.

1/2. Pradeep Kumar Sharma son of Late Shri Khoobchand aged

about 44 years.

1/3. Devi wife of Late Shri Khoobchand aged about 72 years.

All resident of 1D14, Housing Board, Akara Bhatta, Abu Road,

District Sirohi.

1/4. Radha Sharma daughter of Late Shri Khoobchand and wife of Lokendra Datt Mishra, aged 57 years, resident of 1002,

Jamunadas Ka Bada, Ward No.35, Khetavat Ka Bada, Ajmer.

1/5. Chandra Kanta Mishra daughter of Late Shri Khoobchand and wife of Satya Prakash Mishra, aged 43 years, resident of

Shivakunj, KK Nagar Sikandra Kheragah, Agra. (U.P.)

----Appellants

Versus

Municipal Board, Abu Road, through Chairman And

Commissioner, Municipal Board, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Kishore Soni

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

ORDER

Reserved on:- 19/11/2025

Pronounced on:- 16 /12/2025

1. The instant first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No.04/2014 whereby the suit for declaration of title

and permanent injunction filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff purchased a parcel of land situated at Plot No. 4, Ganesh Palai, Abu Road, from one Smt. Shakuntala Devi through a registered sale deed dated 23.03.1992. After purchasing the said plot, the appellant-plaintiff submitted an application before the respondent-department seeking mutation of the land in his name in the revenue records and a patta for plot measuring 55x39 sq ft has been issued in his name. Thereafter, the appellant applied for permission to raise construction over the said plot. The respondent-department, upon verifying the appellant’s ownership on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 23.03.1992, approved the building map for measurements 55x58.6 sq ft and handed it over to the appellant on 06.05.1995. The appellant also obtained an electricity connection without any objection from the respondent-department. However, owing to financial constraints, the appellant could not commence construction on the plot at the relevant point of time.

3. In the year 2008, when the appellant attempted to construct a boundary wall, the respondent-department obstructed the construction and stopped the appellant from raising any structure on the said land. On the contrary, the respondent-department, with the assistance of members of the Municipal Board, constructed a platform on the plot and put an idol of a Hindu deity upon it. In these circumstances, the appellant filed a suit before the learned court below seeking declaration of his title over the disputed plot and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent-department from raising any construction on the land and from interfering with the appellant’s right to construct in accordance with the approved map.

4. The respondent-department filed a written statement denying the appellant’s ownership and title over the plot in question, alleging that the appellant had tampered with the original documents and forged the conversion order by mentioning an incorrect name. The appellant-plaintiff refuted these allegations by filing a rejoinder.

5. The learned civil court, after hearing the parties, framed as many as 9 issues including the issue for relief. The issues framed by learned civil court are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“1& vk;k okn i= dh en la[;k 1 esa of.kZr prqFkZ lhekvksa okys Hkw[k.M dk oknh Lokeh gS rFkk mldk eki oxZQqV gS\

55X58.6 &&oknh

2& vk;k oknh us izfroknh uxjikfydk ls mDr Hkw[k.M

55X58.6 oxZQqV ij fnukad 06-05-1992 dks fof/k vuqlkj fuekZ.k Lohd`