Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2006 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur City (North), Udaipur has been upheld.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: -the respondent -plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant -defendant pertaining to the plots situated at Sunderva, Glass Factory Area, Udaipur; it was, inter alia, claimed that the plaintiff purchase the plots vide sale deed dated 11.08.1981 and got the same sub -divided on 18.08.1981 and since then the plots were in her possession and ownership; it was alleged that though defendant has nothing to do with the said plots, he was seeking to trespass on the said plots and as plaintiff is a lady, she can't fight with the defendant; attempt in this regard was made on 01.05.1990, which was thwart; it is not possible for the plaintiff to keep a constant vigil at the suit plots and, therefore, injunction was sought against the defendant seeking restraint against trespassing on the plots in question and dispossessing the plaintiff. A written statement was filed by the appellant -defendant, inter alia, contending that the plot No. 4 does not belong to the plaintiff as she has sold the same and has given possession to the defendant; defendant is in possession; there is no dispute regarding plot No. 3 as there is a separate boundary wall regarding plot No. 3 and for plot No. 4 defendant has constructed the boundary wall, on which there is a gate and his name plate; plaintiff is not in possession of the said plot; the suit land is agricultural and, therefore, the civil court does not have jurisdiction to hear the suit. Rest of the allegations made in the plaint regarding attempted trespass, were denied.
(3.) THE trial court framed as many as three issues and decided issue relating to jurisdiction against the defendant as preliminary issue on 24.03.1995 and held that the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendant, four witnesses were examined.;