Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is the defendant -appellant's (hereinafter 'the defendant') second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2012, passed by the lower appellate court dismissing the defendant's appeal under Section 96 CPC and upholding the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, decreeing the plaintiffs -respondents' (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') suit for permanent injunction. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction before the trial court stating that they had purchased the suit property from the Nagar Palika (Municipality), Chaksu, District Jaipur on or about 24.09.1960, had paid the requisite consideration therefore and were in continuous possession thereof since then. It was stated that the said plot was thereafter used from time to time to dump their material thereon. It was stated that on 27.04.1991 when the plaintiffs were in the process of making construction over the said plot, the defendant Alok Singh sought to obstruct them and objected to the construction. Finding a cause of action in the facts and circumstances detailed above, a suit for permanent injunction was filed praying that the plaintiffs' possession over the plot in question be protected by way of grant of a decree of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Alok Singh from interfering with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the suit property.
(2.) ON service of notice of the suit laid, the defendant Alok Singh inevitably filed a written statement of denial. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed nine issues. Of importance to this second appeal arising from a suit for permanent injunction are issues Nos. 1 & 1A primarily related to the question as to whether the plaintiffs were the owner of the disputed land and had legal possession thereof. The other issues as framed by the trial court and considered by it as also by the learned first appellate court would be subsumed or otherwise rendered otiose on the determination of issues of the plaintiffs' title, possession and right to an injunction in law. The learned trial court on consideration of the evidence before it found that the plaintiffs had been able to prove their title/possession over the disputed land both on the basis of documentary and oral evidence. The learned trial court relied amongst others, aside of the plaintiff's own evidence upon the evidence of one Ratan Lal (PW -3) stating that he was the member of Nagar Palika (Municipality) and during his tenure as a member, the suit land had been allotted to the plaintiffs. One Brij Kishore Pareek (DW -5) appearing as the witness of the Nagar Palika (Municipality) also defendant in the suit for permanent injunction deposed with the trial court that he was the officer of the Nagar Palika (Municipality) and the patta for the disputed plot had been issued by the Nagar Palika (Municipality) to the plaintiff Nathu Lal. The trial court also relied upon Ex -1 i.e. Patta, issued on 23.12.1960 to the plaintiff Nathu Lal as also Ex -2, General Cash Book of the Nagar Palika (Municipality) evidencing the receipt of the consideration for the sale of the plot in issue. Ex -5 receipt No. 514 corresponded to the entries in the cash register and had been issued by the Nagar Palika (Municipality) showing the receipt of money on account of sale consideration of the plot allotted to the plaintiffs. The learned trial court also took into consideration Ex -8, a certificate issued by the Nagar Palika (Municipality) stating that the Patta for the plot in issue was issued to the plaintiff Nathu Lal. The trial court found no credibility in the evidence of the defence more particularly in view of the fact that the defendant Alok Singh was admittedly not a resident of Chaksu nor had any title or possession. Further none from the family of the defendant Alok Singh purportedly staying in Chaksu appeared before the trial court to depose either about the defendant Alok Singh's possession over the plot in issue or for that matter their own possession. Admittedly there was no documentary evidence with the defendant Alok Singh with regard to his ownership over the plot in issue. The trial court therefore decreed the plaintiffs suit as prayed for.
(3.) AN appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010, passed by the trial court, failed with the first appellate court concurring with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court both on the question of the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the disputes plot. Hence this second appeal under Section 100 CPC.;