- (1.) NONE is present on behalf of appellant. On last so many ocassions also, since 18.01.2010 no body has appeared on behalf of appellant. The matter came up for admission on 18.01.2010, 09.02.2011, 26.09.2011 and 24.04.2012 and when none had appeared on behalf of appellant, on 24.04.2012, a coordinate bench of this Court directed that if nobody appears on behalf of appellant on the next date, the Court shall have no other option but to proceed ex-parte against the appellant. Today also, none is present for appellant. Therefore, heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent- Municipal Board, Rajsamand, Mr. Yashwant Mehta, pointed out that similar matters of same Municipality, filed by various plaintiffs came to be dismissed by this Court by the judgment dated 16.09.2008. A copy of the judgment passed in Civil Second Appeal No.411/2007-Balu Ram Vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) deciding 8 connected appeals has been placed on record, in which it was found that the alleged 'Patta/s' issued in favour of all the plaintiffs were found to be forged and fabricated (" ") and, therefore, no injunction can be granted against the respondent-defendant, Municipal Board. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference: - "4. These arguments of learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.P.Sharma are emphatically refuted by Mr.Yashwant Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Board, Rajsamand. Mr. Yashwant Mehta submitted that against the concurrent findings of two courts that pattas in question were forged and " ",therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction against the Municipal Board and no substantial questions of law arise in the matter. He, further submitted that plaintiffs had filed misc. applications before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 on the ground that on the basis of similar patta issued in favour of one Narain Lal, the learned trial court had decreed the suit for injunction on 29/1/1999 namely suit no.123/95 (Narain Lal vs. Municipal Board, Rajsamand) and appeal of the Municipal Board was also dismissed on 27/7/2000 and this happened because the Municipal Board failed to produce any record and evidence before the learned courts below in that matter. However, he submitted that that could not furnish any ground for grant of any injunction in favour of present appellants because in the present case Municipal Board had fully contested the suit and produced the record of Gram Panchayat as well as defence witness including the then Sarpanch of the same Gram Panchayat and thus established before the courts below that plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction as pattas in question were found to be forged and " " . 5. Having heard learned counsels and perused the record, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question really arises in the present appeals. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of these second appeals is required to be answered in negative. This Court while admitting the second appeal on 15/11/2007 had framed the following substantial question of law:- "Whether both the courts below committed error of law while deciding issue no.2 and committed error of law by drawing wrong inference from the facts of the case about the genuineness of the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and finding is based on assumption ignoring the legal position that when there is a Patta issued by competent authority a presumption can be drawn that it has been issued by following due process by the authority." 6. Having perused the orders and evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that courts below have not misread any evidence nor the findings of facts returned by the courts below can be said to be perverse. The Courts below have concurrently found that Pattas issued in favour of plaintiffs were forged and " " Mere receipt of payment for some amount paid to the Gram Panchayat is not sufficient to confer any right of ownership or possession over the land in question on the plaintiffs. 7. After inclusion of area of Gram Panchayat Dhoinda in the municipal limits of Rajsamand the entire record of Gram Panchayat was possessed by the Municipal Board, Rajsamand and Commissioner's report was also produced before the courts below who had not found any construction of plaintiffs over the land in question. D.W.2- Champa Lal, the then Sarpanch had also denied issuing such patta. The Pattas in question were merely photo copies of the alleged original Pattas issued in favour of plaintiffs, which was not believed by the courts below, therefore, this Court finds that question framed above is required to be answered in negative and it is, therefore, held that the courts below have not committed any error while deciding issue no.2 and drawing inference from the facts of the case that Pattas issued by Gram Panchayat in favour of plaintiff-appellants were forged and " "and thus, courts below have not erred in refusing injunction to the appellants-plaintiffs. The second appeals are found to be devoid of merit and same are accordingly dismissed. 8. For the same reasons, the misc. applications filed by plaintiff-appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 are also required to be dismissed and same are hereby dismissed. No costs" One of the matters was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No.27855/2008-Nana Lal & Anr. Vs. Municipal Board, Rajsamand, which also came to be dismissed by the Apex Court vide the order dated 01.12.2008. A copy of the order passed by Apex Court has also been placed on record for perusal of the Court. The same is extracted herein below: - "No ground is made out for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is dismissed." Nobody is present for the appellant to controvert these submissions of learned counsel for the respondent- Municipal Board, Rajsamand. Accordingly, the present second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff, Veni Ram, is hereby dismissed in view of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Balu Ram (supra). No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the appellant and learned courts below forthwith.;