- (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur, District ­ Pali, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sumerpur, District ­ Pali has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the appellant filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the sole respondent with the averments that a plot admeasureing 4800 square feet was situated at Village ­ Khangdi, Tehsil ­ Sumerpur, which was joint with his brother Dilip Singh and the same has been orally partitioned; it was claimed that on the eastern side of the said plot, there was a road, on which the defendant has raised illegal construction and for the purpose of ingress and egress from the said plot, the public road was being used by the plaintiff and his neighbours for many years, which has now been closed on account of illegal construction and, therefore, the construction be removed by way of mandatory injunction and the defendant be directed by way of permanent injunction not to raise any construction in future. A written statement was filed and the site map was disputed; it was claimed that there was no road/way on the eastern side of plaintiff's plot and the defendant has demolished his old construction and has raised new house; he has not encroached on any public way; the door of the plaintiff's property was on western side. The trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiff's three witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant no evidence was produced. Ultimately, the matter proceeded ex parte against the defendant.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the so called Patta produced by the plaintiff was inadmissible in evidence, as the same was insufficiently stamped.;