Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) THE appellant -plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 5th November 2014, passed by Addl. District Judge No. 2, Udaipur (learned lower appellate Court), whereby the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Udaipur City South, Udaipur (learned trial Court).
(2.) THE facts, in brief, relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that appellant -plaintiff Vijay Singh filed a civil suit in the learned trial Court against respondent -defendant Khuman Singh for perpetual injunction in respect of Plot No. 146, situated at Savina Khera stating that the said plot measuring 25x18 yards purchased by him from Gram Panchayat Savina on 31.03.1962 through a sale deed for consideration and the Gram Panchayat issued Patta for the said plot in his favour on 05.04.1962 as such from the date of its purchase same is in his possession but the respondent -defendant wants to grab this plot by trespassing over it and has staked stones nearby on public land and thereby creating trespass and nuisance. According to appellant -plaintiff cause of action arose to him on 19.11.1999 which is continuing till date. He prayed for restraining respondent defendant by perpetual injunction not to trespass over his plot as well as public way and further restraining the defendant from raising any construction. A written statement to the suit was filed on behalf of respondent -defendant denying the possession and ownership of appellant. It was his defence that Patta produced by appellant -plaintiff is forged one as no such patta was ever issued by Gram Panchayat Savina or Titaradi and that the neighbourhood shown in the patta are also fake. It was his defence that Patta for the disputed land bearing Plot No. 104 was issued by Gram Panchayat Savina to his grandfather on 13.11.1961 and since then he is in possession of the plot in question and his lot many things are lying there. It was stated that in connection with the forged Patta produced by appellant FIR was also lodged. Asserting that the land in question is in his use and occupation as owner since the date of issuance of Patta to his grandfather, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned trial Court framed two issues for determination. Appellant appeared in the witness -box as PW1 and got examined Ghashiram as PW2. He produced four documents to support his case. Respondent appeared himself as DW1 and got examined DW2 Shankar Malviya, Tehsildar, DW3 Chandri Bai, DW4 Himmat Singh Bhati, Tehsildar and DW5 Shankerlal Meghwal, Land Record Inspector and also produced 15 documents.;