MADAN, J. - (1.) THESE ten civil revision petitions are directed against the judgments of the trial Court declining to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners (plaintiffs) in their suits for permanent injunction, which have been affirmed by the appellate court. Since common questions of facts so also law are involved, these petitions were heard at joint request of the parties and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) LAST four petitions filed by Shri R. K. Agrawal on behalf of the petitioners in CRP No. 349 to 352/2000 and first petition filed by Shri G. C. Garg on behalf of the petitioner in CRP No. 348/2000 are directed against common order dated 5. 4. 2k passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur in their civil misc. appeal Nos. 16 to 19 & 15/2000, arising out of judgments dated 28. 3. 2k of the Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur City in civil misc. (TI) case Nos. 107/2k (Radha Govind), 109 & 110/2k (Lalchand), 108/2k (Manoharlal) & 151/2k (Jaichand ). Similarly 2nd to fifth petitions (supra) filed by Shri G. C. Garg on behalf of the petitioners in CRP No. 521/2k, 520/2k, 593/2k, 700/2k & sixth petition filed by Shri R. K. Agrawal on behalf of the petitioner in CRP No. 425/2k are directed against following judgments- 1. CRP No. 521/2k Common judgment dt. 16/5/2k of ADJ No. 5 2. CRP No. 520/2k Jaipur City Jaipur in CMA No. 23/2k (Saroj) & CMA No. 24/2k (Dharamshala) against judgments dt. 5/4/2k of Addl. Civ. Judge No. 4, Jaipur City in TI case Nos. 131/2k (Saroj) & No. 130/2k (Dharamshala ). 3. CRP No. 593/2k Judgment dt. 2/6/2k of ADJ No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur in CMA No. 34/2k against judgment dt. 5. 4. 2k of Addl. Civ. Judge No. 4, Jaipur in TI case No. 129/2k. 4. CRP No. 700/2k Judgment dt. 5. 7. 2k of ADJ No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur in CMA No. 37/2k against judgment dt. 29/3/2k of Addl. Civ. Judge No. 4, Jaipur in TI case No. 150/2k. 5. CRP No. 425/2k Judgment dt. 1. 5. 2k of ADJ No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur in CMA No. 22/2k against judgment dt. 28/3/2k of Addl. Civ. Judge No. 4, Jaipur in TI case No. 104/2k. In order to decide the controversy at issue as involved herein, facts of each suit out of which these petitions have arisen, are epitomised as follows after having been wrung out of the respective plaint, alone. Re. Civil Writ No. 120/2000 (CRP No. 348/2000) It was filed by plaintiff Jaichand Soni against the State of Rajasthan through Collector & Municipal Corporation Jaipur alongwith its officers seeking permanent injunction in respect of a shop No. P 50 situated at Khanda Modikhana, Kotwali Chhoti Chopar Jaipur measuring 27 sq. yards on the assertions made in the plaint that this suit shop was purchased by him & his brother Ridhkaran by a conveyance of Nazul building at an auction sale of 1973 for a highest bid at Rs. 27001/- by sale deed dated 27. 12. 1977 (xerox copy whereof was filed alongwith plaint & TI application), and whereafter his brother Ridhkaran released the suit shop in his favour of release deed 27. 6. 1981. It has also been averred in the plaint that under the garb of encroachments over verandah in the markets, the defendants are adamant to dispossess the plaintiff and demolish the suit shop and therefore, the defendants are sought to be restrained from they are sought to be restrained from doing so and to that effect temporary injunction was also sought. In written statement of the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 (Municipality) it has been averred that the suit shop is the land of public street which could not have been sold by the State Government inasmuch as the Municipality was not party to the sale deed therefore, it was not binding on them and that apart the plaintiff had encroached by putting walls, tin shed & shutter over public street land under the garb of sale deed, whereas such a piece of land was already declared as public street in the year 1954 and whereafter also before a Kurup Committee the plaintiff could have raised objection but having failed to do so, he has waived his right, because the Kurup Committee had already rejected objections raised for such sale of land of public street (verandah) and further Municipality's orders dated 18. 1. 86, 28. 1. 86, 7. 3. 86 & 17. 3. 86 issued under Sec. 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 were upheld, inasmuch as in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1532/84 this Court (SB) issued an interim order on 28. 2. 85 was made absolute as to removal of verandah and/or encroachments over public street, inasmuch as order of the Single Bench was affirmed by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 18. 3. 87, besides in other Prakash Chand Shukla vs. M. C. Jaipur/jda/state (1), again orders were issued to remove such encroachments over the verandah & public streets under judgment dated 21. 4. 89 and latest by judgment dated 11. 3. 2000 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition filed by Jaipur Vyapar Sangh Re. Civil Suit No. 100/2000 (CRP No. 520/2000)
(3.) ACCORDING to the plaint, plaintiff is Surya Bhagwan Agrawal Dharamshala and in the suit for permanent injunction so also application for temporary injunction, the plaintiff claimed relief of injunction for restraining the defendant (Municipality) from interferring with possession and demolition of a piece of land measuring 8 ft. x 8. 6 ft. over which a shop & underground had been constructed in the Dharamshala situated at the corner of Chowkri Ghat Darwaja, Manak Chowk Choppar & Ramganj Bazar Jaipur. The suit shop land is stated to have belonged being in the ownership of one Surajmal Modi under a registered sale deed dated 10/11/1935 having been purchased from Gordhanlal & Harinarain on or about 10/11/1935 and whereafter Surajmal had died on 7. 12. 1935 and whereafter Surajmal had died on 7. 12. 1954 thereby whose ownership stood inherited in favour of Chuttanlal who also before his death executed a will in favour of 30. 7. 1963 in favour of his wife Vidhyadevi as her half of share and rest half of the share was gifted in favour of Dharamshala. It has also been averred that under the garb of a notification dated 17. 7. 54 which related to the declaration of verandah as public street, the defendant is likely to dispossess the occupier of the suit shop so also by way of demolition of construction thereon whereas the suit shop property has been in continuation possession of its owners so also transferees since 1935, nor there was any question of exercise of powers on the part of the defendant Municipality under Sec. 203 of the Act in respect of the suit shop & the underground therein. In written statement the defendant has reiterated the assertions as have been made in other similar suit which have been referred to herein above. Re. Civil Suit No. 101/2000 (CRP No. 521/2000) In the plaint, plaintiff Saroj Devi claimed that she had purchased half of undivided share of shop & its underground measuring 8 ft. x 8. 6 ft. situated at the corner of Ramganj Bazar & Khanda Baiji & below Temple of Baiji in Manak Chowk Chowkri Ghat Darwaja Jaipur, under a registered sale deed dated 23. 8. 93 from its owner Chuttanlal Modi s/o Late Surajmal Modi, Anil Kumar Modi, Vidya Devi. It has been averred that the suit shop had since been owned by Surajmal father of Chuttanlal by virtue of a sale deed dated 10. 11. 1935 from Gordhanlal & Harinarain, having construction of Tin shed and underground also. Surajmal expired on 7. 12. 1954 and thereby the suit shop & its underground stood inherited to Chuttanlal & his family members and after death of Chuttanlal it was inherited to his wife Vidyadevi & other children by virtue of will dated 30. 7. 1963. It has also been averred in the plaint that Surajmal had mortgaged the suit shop property on 28. 7. 1939 with Fatehmal Kataria from which it appeared that this suit shop was in existence since 1935. Similar averments have been made as to the notification declaring the suit land as public street, as having been made in identical suit No. 100/2000. Re. Civil Suit No. 99/2000 (CRP No. 593/2000) Govind Narain claiming himself as Karta of HUF, alongwith Kunj Behari & Girraj Prasad have averred in their plaint that a shop measuring 8. 5 ft x 8. 5 ft duly closed from both the sides verandah situated at Chowkri Sarhad at north side of Aatish Chhatri in Tripolia Bazar Jaipur, was purchased by Keshavlal & Radheyshyam from its owners (Madanlal & Hanuman Bux) by a registered sale deed dated 18. 10. 1949 and before it, the suit shop stood mortgaged under its registered deed dated 21. 7. 1948 and it was got redeemed by Madanlal before getting sale deed executed in favour of Keshavlal & Radhey Shyam, whose sons are the plaintiffs, and presently it stands occupied by Proprietor of Goyal Lavajma Store & Goyal Safa Sherwani Store. However, it has been stated that plaintiffs are in possession of property which sonsists of two shops in the shape of verandah with its ceiling and rest of purchased property has been in possession of Radheyshyam & their family members since 1948 having verandah. Then similar averments have been made as to the notification declaring the suit land as public street, as having been made in identical suit No. 100/2000 and similar assertions have been made by the defendant Municipality in its written statement, which have been referred to herein above. Re-Civil Suit No. 110/2000 (CRP No. 700/2000) ;