- (1.) This civil second appeal has been preferred by appellant-plaintiff Govind Kishore being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal Decree No.38/2010, whereby the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by the learned first appellate court and the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilara, in Civil Original Suit No.35/2006 was maintained, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellantplaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants. It was averred in the plaint that the appellant-plaintiff's house in question as mentioned in the plaint is situated in Indra Colony, Bilara. It was averred that the plot in question is in possession of the appellant-plaintiff, which was given by the respondent-defendants in lieu of his plot which is situated back side of the hospital which was given to the respondents for school purposes. It was further averred that the appellant also obtained water and electricity connection on the aforesaid plot and got ration card on the aforesaid address and he is residing on the plot in question with his family members for last many years. It was further averred that the appellantplaintiff also applied for grant of patta of the said plot. It was further averred that the respondent-defendants may dispossess the appellant from the plot in question any time. Hence, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent-defendants from dispossessing the appellant from the plot in question and making interference in use and occupation of the appellant in the plot in question. The respondent-defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein they denied most of the averments made in the plaint. It was averred that the appellantplaintiff illegally took possession of the plot in question, which belongs to the respondents and the appellant-plaintiff is residing there as a trespasser and he has raised construction without any permission. The respondent-defendants denied the fact that the plot in question was given to the appellant-plaintiff in lieu of the plot given for the purpose of school.
(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as four issues. The appellant-plaintiff failed to produce any evidence despite opportunities provided to him. The learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2008 in the absence of leading evidence. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the appellantplaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate court, which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010.;