- (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 26.4.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jaisalmer, whereby the suit filed by respondent -Kisan Lal under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act') has been decreed and the appellant -defendant has been directed to handover physical possession of the disputed plot to the plaintiff within a period of 15 days, however, the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction has been refused as having merged in the decree relating to possession. The suit against the defendant No.2 Municipal Board, Jaisalmer and the cross -objection filed by the defendant No.1 ­ Brij Ratan Chhangani has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, may be noticed thus : the plaintiff Kisan Lal filed a suit on 16.7.2008 under Section 6 of the Act seeking possession and permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant Brij Ratan Chhangani and the Municipal Board, Jaisalmer with the averment that the plaintiff was in possession of a plot of land ad -measuring 25' x 50' from 1993 at Gafoor Bhattha Kacchi Basti, Jaisalmer, which was regularised by the Municipal Board and on account of plaintiff's possession, a resolution was passed by the Municipal Board for regularising the said possession, however, as the land in question was reserved for dispensary, a request was made to the Municipal Board to give him another plot of land and regularise the same. It is claimed that the surveyor of the Municipal Board proposed regularisation of Plot No.E -73 and subsequent thereto, after receiving the amount of regularisation from the plaintiff, the Municipal Board executed allotment letter in favour of the plaintiff indicating the boundaries and area. It was further claimed in the plaint that the said Plot No.E -73 was in continuous possession and title of the plaintiff, however, in the last week of June, 2008, the defendant trespassed on the said land and placed stone slabs. Consequently, the plaintiff prayed for possession of the land from defendant - Brij Ratan Chhangani and injunction against the Municipal Board not to regularise the land in favour of defendant No.1. A written statement was filed by the appellant -defendant contesting the averments made in the plaint. It was denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the plot of land, which he claims to have surrendered and was consequently allotted Plot No.E -73. It was claimed that the plaintiff is a resident of Sanwala Pada at Jaisalmer where he has his residence, he has purchased a Plot No.554 from the Municipal Board at Jainarayan Vyas colony in auction and therefore, the land in question could not have been allotted to the plaintiff. It was claimed that the defendant was in possession of Plot No.E -73 and for which the proceedings for regularisation were pending and amount for regularisation has been deposited. It was claimed that the allotment letter was issued against the provisions of law and suppression of material facts and therefore, the defendant by way of counter claim sought cancellation of allotment letter.
(3.) A written statement to the counter claim was filed by the plaintiff only and it was prayed that the counter claim be dismissed.;