Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal assailing the judgements dated 17.01.2006 and 3.7.2015 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff -appellant was concurrently dismissed.
(2.) Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction asserting that he was in possession of a property measuring 19 x 9 sq. ft. situated in the boundaries mentioned in para 1 of the plaint for long. He got a commercial premises constructed over the said property. He deposited sale consideration of Rs. 181/ - with the Gram Panchayat, who issued patta dated 19.11.2001 in his favour. The Gram Panchayat without notice cancelled the patta by order dated 26.6.2004 and the defendants especially Ashok Kumar, defendant No. 3 was adamant to evict the plaintiff -appellant from the said property. Defendant No. 1 - Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in the written statement pleaded that patta was lawfully issued to the plaintiff, but it had to be cancelled pursuant to the order of the Development Officer. Defendant No. 3 - Ashok Kumar, the main contesting respondent alleged certain irregularities in the process of issue of patta. He admitted possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land, but contended that it was permissive possession and also filed counter claim contending that plaintiff had no right or title over the disputed land, which was, in fact, part of the ancestral residential plot of the defendant. As per family settlement, this land came to the share of his father Radhey Shyam and after his death to the share of defendant No. 3. He constructed rooms and shop on the aforesaid land in 1980 and used the same till April, 2003 for storage of fodder and grains etc. Plaintiff had made use of this land with his permission for storage of fodder for his cattle and agreed to handover the possession back soon after the fodder was consumed. The plaintiff in connivance with the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bansoor got a illegal patta issued in his favour on 19.11.2001. Thereupon defendant made a complaint to the District Collector on 18.7.2003 and after thorough enquiry, the patta was cancelled. Plaintiff did not file appeal against the order of cancellation of patta. He did not even implead Collector, Alwar or Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bansoor as defendants to the suit. Plaintiff did not serve a notice under Sec. 109 of the Panchayati Raj Act prior to filing of the suit. The trial curt framed eight issues and eventually by the impugned judgement and decree dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, but decreed the counter claim of the defendant No. 3 declaring him owner of the disputed shop/land and also held him entitle to recover possession of the same. The aforesaid judgement dated 17.10.2006 has been affirmed by the first appellate court by judgement dated 3.7.2015.
(3.) Shri Vikas Kabra, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that plaintiff has evidently proved his title and possession over the property in dispute since long back. The electricity connection in the name of plaintiff's father alone can establish the title of the plaintiff over the property in dispute and long possession. The Gram Panchayat had issued the patta in favour of plaintiff after following due and proper procedure provided under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and respective rules thereunder on payment of sale consideration of Rs. 181. The Gram Panchayat without notice cancelled the patta by order dated 26.6.2004, for which the Gram Panchayat, Bansoor itself is not competent. It is submitted that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have categorically discarded the documentary evidence EX. A1 and Ex. A2, which are unstamped and unregistered document. However, the unstamped and unregistered documents are admissible in evidence. Thus the finding on Issue No. 6 is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court.;