Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur upholding the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chomu, District Jaipur whereby the appellant -plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the appellant -plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation, Chomu in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chomu. In the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiff's father one Radha Kishan purchased east facing shop along with west facing Pakka Chabutra from one Man Singh Rajput through agreement to sell on 16.06.1946. Subsequently, the plaintiff's father sold the shop to one Geeta Devi on 13.08.1976. Gita Devi further sold the shop to one Sirajuddin. It was further stated that on 17.08.1985 plaintiff's father executed a will and bequeathed Pakka Chabutra in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff set up a south facing kiosk on the Pakka Chabutra and was doing sanitary business therefrom. With the intent to dispossess the plaintiff from the Pakka Chabutra, on 15.05.2001, the respondents -defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') came to the plaintiff's kiosk and threatened him to remove the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. On notice, the defendants filed written statements of denial. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed eight issues whereupon evidence were produced by both the parties. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decreed dated 15.11.2006. An appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006 was filed by the plaintiff which was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.08.2010. Hence this second appeal.
(2.) HEARD the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. The courts below have found that the plaintiff was unable to establish his title to the Pakka Chabutra west of his shop sold to Geeta Devi on 13.08.1976. From the evidence on record, the courts below have concluded that the plaintiff's encroachment over the Pakka Chabutra (platform) encroaching a public chowk had also been removed on 09.05.2001 with police help and the area utilized for making of a road and drains but thereafter the plaintiff on 18.05.2001 had again sought to forcibly occupy the disputed area. Holding that even from the sale -deed dated 16.06.1946 when the plaintiff's father Radha Kishan was stated to have come into ownership of the shop, there was no evidence to establish the ownership of the plaintiff's father over the disputed Chabutra, the courts below concluded that neither the plaintiff was the titleholder of the Pakka Chabutra in issue nor was in lawful settled possession. The trial court consequently found no force in the suit for injunction and the first appellate court concurrently held by a well reasoned order that in the state of evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction.
(3.) A perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below indicates that the said judgments and decrees are well considered based on findings of fact. Good reasons have been set out by the courts below for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had neither any title to the dispute Chabutra, nor was he able to establish his lawful settled possession thereof. Absent any legal foundation, the courts below have rightly concluded that the plaintiff had no case for a perpetual injunction against the JMC, more so his unauthorised possession had been removed from a public chowk on 09.05.2001 and a road and drains constructed. I find no perversity or misdirection in law in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. No substantial question of law is made out. Consequently, the second appeal is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.;