- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendant-Municipal Corporation against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from demolishing three shops constructed by the plaintiff.
(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit by averring that she is the owner of the shops in dispute which are on rent with Ravi Dutt, Mohan Lal and Harbans Lal. It is further the case of the plaintiff-respondent that she purchased plot from Gurbux Singh and Avtar Singh vide registered sale deed dated 7th January, 1969 and completed the construction of the shops before 31st December, 1969. The defendant served the plaintiff with a notice dated 31st January, 1974 vide which the latter was threatened to demolish the shops in dispute. The notice was described to be illegal, mala fide and ultra vires.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit by averring that the plaintiff raised illegal and un-authorised encroachment on the public street not only by raising construction of the shops but also by erecting upon the shops a projection. The defendant-appellant denied that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner of the shops and that she purchased the plot in question upon which the shops were constructed. It was the case of the defendant-appellant that the construction of the shops was completed just near the time when the notice was served. Upon the rival contentions of the parties the following issue were framed :- 1. Whether the impugned notice No. 441/E dated 31st January, 1974, is illegal, ultra vires, ineffective and invalid ? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP 3. Relief. It was held under issue No. 1 by the trial Court that the plot upon which shops have been constructed belongs to the plaintiff and that the defendant-appellant has failed to prove that these shops have been constructed on the public street or on the land of the Municipal Committee. As regard over-hanging structure on the shops which projected on the street, notice was held to be legal. Issue No. 1 was, therefore, partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendant. Under Issue No. 2, the plaintiff was held entitled to the grant of permanent injunction so far as the demolition of three shops was concerned. As regards over-hanging structure, the plaintiff was held not entitled to the grant of permanent injunction. The appeal filed by the appellant before the first appellate Court was dismissed.;