S.N.Modi, J. - (1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction.
(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : The plaintiff after having given the highest bid of Rs. 11,800 on 9-11955 at a sale by public auction held in pursuance of the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. hereinafter called as the Act, and the rules framed thereunder in respect of the property bearing Nos. 293, 293/1 situate in ward No. 8 at Alwar, obtained Certificate of Sale Ex. 1 signed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 23-12-1958. Along with the certificate of sale, a plan of the property sold was also handed over to the plaintiff which is Ex. 2. The certificate of sale Ex. 1 mentions boundaries of the property sold, its total area, namely, 279 sq. yards and its plot Nos. 293 and 293/1. The plan Ex. 2 shows the land sold, its boundaries and plot Nos. 293 and 293/1. The dispute between the parties relates to a portion out of this property. The disputed portion has been shown in the plan attached to the plaint in red lines bearing plot No. 293/1. The plaintiff constructed one tin-shed on this disputed land and got its floor plastered with cement. The defendant-Nagar Parishad, Alwar, threatened the plaintiff to demolish the tin-shed and remove the cemented floor. The plaintiff then filed a suit on 2-111961 out of which this appeal has arisen, for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and use of the disputed land. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff purchased the property bearing No. 293 but pleaded his own title on the property bearing No. 293/1. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff had forcibly encroached upon the land bearing No. 293/1 and thereby obstructed the traffic. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed several issues, material issue being :-- "Whether the disputed land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff?" The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the disputed land and decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Alwar, by his judgment dated 24-3-1967 reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.
(3.) Dealing with the main issue, the learned Senior Civil Judge held that the Certificate of Sale Ex. 1 was not correct and the disputed land bearing No. 293/1 had been erroneously included therein. He gave the following reasons for arriving at the above conclusion :-- 1. From the statement of Shivlal, a clerk in the office of the Managing Officer, Alwar, and the survey report (which was not produced in court), it was established that the property sold to the plaintiff was plot No. 293 and not the disputed land bearing No. 293/1. 2. From the judgment of the Municipal Board dated 29-10-1960 (Ex. A/1) and the site-plan (Ex. A/2), it was established that the disputed land was shown in the site-plan Ex. A/2 as 'jamin sarkari'. 3. From the patta Ex. A/4, it appeared that Abidali had purchased the property from Mst. Namni and therein the disputed land was shown as 'jamin sarkari'. 4. The property register maintained by the Custodian showed that the disputed property did not belong to the evacuee Abidali. (It may be mentioned here that in this register the property belonging to Abidali was shown as bearing Nos. 293/1 and 293/2 and there was no mention of the property bearing No. 293 at all). In this connection, the learned Civil Judge further found that the open yard mentioned in the register referred to the yard situate in the main building and not the open land in question. 5. The site-plans Ex. X and Ex. Z produced before the Municipal Council by the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining permission for construction did not show that the disputed land belonged to him. (Both these documents were admitted in evidence by the appellate court under Order 41. Rule 27, Civil P. C.). 6. Certificate of sale Ex. 1 was ambiguous and was not sufficient to prove title of the plaintiff. 7. The plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed land was owned by Abidali and was declared as evacuee property. 8. The area of 279 sq. yards mentioned in the Certificate of Sale Ex. 1 was wrongly entered by inadvertence.;