- (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.05.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Merta, District Nagaur, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Merta, District Nagaur, whereby, the trial court had decreed the suit filed by respondent -plaintiff, has been upheld.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondent - plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellant Gram Panchayat with the averments that on 28.01.2000 he purchased a plot from Prem Raj S/o Shri Bhalla Ram Jat by a registered sale deed; a Patta No. 31 dated 15.10.1981 was issued by Gram Panchayat to said Shri Prem Raj and possession was handed over on the same date; Prem Raj was granted permission by the Gram Panchayat on 10.01.1988 to raise construction; the said Prem Raj remained in possession of the suit plot from 15.10.1981 to 28.01.2000, wherein, he had raised construction and started residing therein; after purchasing the plot, the plaintiff had collected seven trolleys stones for construction and the defendant through its Gram Panchayat mis - using their position, claiming the land to be government land got the said stones removed; when the said action was opposed by the plaintiff's wife, she was abused and was threatened; whereafter a notice No. 1999/2000 dated 28.02.2000 was issued, which was baseless as the land was not government land; the Gram Panchayat has no right on the said land and the defendant is bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff and illegally trespass on the said land; earlier a suit being Suit No. 181/2000 was filed for permanent injunction, which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on 18.12.2001; a notice dated 04.10.2001 was issued, which was received by the defendant; however, no reply was given; ultimately, it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. A written statement was filed by the defendant disputing the averments made in the plaint; it was contended that Patta was never issued to Prem Raj and Prem Raj had no right to sell the said land; the possession of the land was never handed over to Prem Raj and no permission was granted; it was claimed that the plaintiff in the garb of illegal Patta and sale was seeking to trespass on land of the Gram Panchayat; permission was granted to file fresh suit, but not on the same cause of action; proper notice was not given; proper Court fees was not filed; ultimatley, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.
(3.) THE trial court framed nine issues. On behalf of the plaintiff ­ six witnesses were examined and eight documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant no oral evidence was produced and only certified copies of the previous litigation between the parties were filed, which were marked as Exhibit - A/1 to Exhibit -A/8.;