- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
(2.) BY this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., the plaintiff-appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of of the appellate court dated 2nd December, 2011 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 20th November, 2004 dismissing the civil suit of the plaintiff appellant for declaration and injunction has been affirmed. At the very outset, counsel for the appellant submits that vide prayer No.1 of the civil suit, the plaintiff has not claimed title on the disputed property. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the selected person of the second list of 1992-93 whom Gram Panchayat Bonli allotted a plot measuring 30 x 45 vide resolution no.10 dated 3rd June, 1996, the possession of the same was handed over to him on 31.8.1996 and since then he is in continuous possession of the same. He constructed stone wall on all the four sides and also constructed one Chhapper covered by the tin-sheets and one chhapper. In the year 2000 when he went to Sawai Madhopur, the defendant illegality encroached upon the land and when he asked him to remove encroachment, he bent upon to quarrel with him. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendant-respondent filed written statement and disputed the facts mentioned by the plaintiff regarding allotment of the land in dispute. The land in dispute is in his possession. It was further mentioned that Ramesh Chand, father of the plaintiff was the member of the Gram Panchayat therefore, he could not participate in such proceedings. It was then mentioned that the plaintiff has not disclosed the plot number and the place where the land was allotted to him and all the proceedings were illegal. The further case of the defendant was that the said allotment of land in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled on 25th January, 2002 against which the plaintiff filed revision petition before the Additional Collector which was dismissed and against the order of dismissal of the revision, plaintiff has filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.7347/2000 which is pending before this Court. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following six issues:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... From the side of the plaintiff three witnesses namely, PW.1 Satyanarayan, PW.2 Manoj Kumar and PW.3 Ramesh were examined and documents P-1 to P-4 were got exhibited. In defence, four witnesses namely, DW.1 Babu Lal, DW.2 Deen Dayal, DW.3 Sita Ram and DW.4 Ram Khiladi were examined and seven documents Ex. A-1 to A-7 were got exhibited.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides and considering the evidence of the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that neither any patta of the land in dispute was existing in favour of the plaintiff nor he was having possession over the same and decided issue nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff whereas issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 against the defendant and thus, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The lower appellate court after considering the evidence of the parties has upheld the findings recorded by the trial court on issue no.1 and 2 against the plaintiff by reasoned order and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Submission of the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that earlier the plaintiff was holding legal possession over the land in dispute and the defendant made attempt to dispossess him forcefully. ;