Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 27.08.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali Head Quarter Jaitaran, whereby, judgment and decree dated 19.01.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bar, District Pali has been set aside.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff Kesa Ram filed a suit for permanent, mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the defendants, inter alia, with the averments that at village Raipur in front of Bus Stand defendant Nos. 2 and 3 proposed a residential colony, wherein, the plaintiff alongwith other persons purchased residential plots; for getting into the said residential colony from the main road, a 12 ft. wide road exists, whereafter, the road is 15 ft. wide and filed a site map alongwith the suit; it was claimed that the road was being used by the plaintiff and other persons from the time the plots were purchased by them; the road was indicated in the registered sale deeds relating to the said plots and from the said road the water pipe lines have been placed for getting into the colony; the road was the only main road to get into the colony; however, the defendants were bent upon closing the said way and to sell the said land; the defendant No. 1 placed a cabin on the said road on 08.09.2002 resulting in blocking the road for the purpose of ingress and egress of vehicles; on being asked to clear the road, the defendants threatened to sell the land and closed the road; it was claimed that if the road is closed, then the residents of the colony would suffer and would be deprived of the main road; the defendants were not entitled to sell the said land; ultimately, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from raising construction on the road, sell the same and be restrained from interfering in the use whereof alongwith mandatory injunction for removal of the cabin and, in case the land is sold, injunction against the Sub Registrar from registering the same and for the purpose of restoring the way. A written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3; it was claimed that the land in question was agricultural land and the defendants have sold the Khatedari rights to the plaintiff and defendant; the averments regarding residential colony and selling of plots were denied; it was claimed that the plots for shops had already been demarcated and foundations were filled, which were from before the land was sold to the plaintiff; the existence of the way was denied and it was claimed that the disputed place was a plot for shop; the suit was not maintainable in absence of notice under Section 80 CPC; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff; the suit was barred by law under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Tenancy Act'); ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial court framed four issues; on behalf of the plaintiff four witnesses were examined and six documents were exhibited; on behalf of the defendants four witnesses were examined and four documents were exhibited.;