NISHA GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff -appellant u/S.100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 29/03/2014 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Kota whereby, it has dismissed Civil Regular Appeal No.20/2007 filed by the plaintiff -appellant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 18/05/2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Kota dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff -appellant for permanent injunction.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this second appeal in brief are that plaintiff -appellant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction that a big plot of Bada Ramdwara situated in Kishorpura Kota was owned by Sadhu Dhuniram, who filed a suit for declaration of rights and permanent injunction and application for temporary injunction was also filed, where both the parties have furnished Undertaking upon which, injunction order has been passed. The contention of the appellant is mainly based on the Undertaking furnished by Sadhu Dhuniram in another suit and pleading of the appellant is that land measuring 100x100 feet was given on rent to the appellant on rent of Rs.200/ - per month and now defendants want to dispossess him hence, the suit for injunction has been filed. Per contra, the contention of the respondents was that it was never the land of any private person. It is the land of the Nagar Nigam and on Desherraha, animal fate has been used to be held on the land. It has been shown in the master plan as such and it is not in the possession of the plaintiff. The suit has been dismissed and the appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. The Issue No.1 is the core issue. Appellant has relied upon the rent -deed (Ex.21) and receipts (Ex.2 to Ex.20) and contention of the appellant is that as per rent -deed, he is in possession of the land but both the courts below have considered the fact that Ex.21 reveals no description of the land and it could not relate with the disputed property and at the same time, suspicion has also been shown on the receipts (Ex.2 to Ex.20). Further reliance has been shown by the appellant on the Undertaking submitted in the other suit but before the trial court, the copy of the original suit has not been submitted. It has been tried to submit before the appellate court but the appellate court has rightly disallowed the application as there was no averment of the appellant to the effect that inspite of exercise of due diligence, he could not produce the same before the court below and otherwise also, Undertaking has no basis in the present suit as, as per Issue No.1, it has to be proved by the appellant that he is in possession of the disputed land by way of tenant. Both the courts below have considered the rival contentions and the documents submitted and it is the concurrent finding of both the courts below that Ex.21 rent -deed could not be relied upon as he could not describe the identity of the land or the boundaries of the property and it is an incomplete document and appellant himself as admitted in his cross -examination that on the land, fates are going on.;