JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for both the parties.
(2.) THESE two appeals involve same parties litigating for the same property, hence both the appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. Plaintiff-appellant Budharam filed a Civil Suit No. 86/1999 (122/1991) in the trial Court against defendants-respondents Rameshchand and Gram Panchayat, Tehla, for declaration to declare `patta' dated 10th November, 1975, issued by defendant No. 2 Gram Panchayat in favour of defendant No. 1 Rameshchand, to have been issued without jurisdiction and to cancel the same; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the disputed property of the ownership and possession of the appellant and not to dispossess the appellant from the disputed property. It was pleaded in the plaint that the disputed plot of land was purchased by the appellant through registered sale- deed dated 9th May, 1969 from Puranmal and since then he is owner and in possession of the said plot. The respondent Rameshchand got one `patta' issued in his favour from respondent No. 2 Gram Panchayat, and, under the garb of said `patta', he wants to raise construction over the disputed plot of land belonging to the appellant Budharam. The defendant-respondent No. 1 Rameshchand filed his written- statement pleading therein that he was allotted with a land by defendant No. 2 Gram Panchayat and `patta' was also issued in his favour in accordance with the provisions of law. The appellant Budharam wants to encroach upon the land of the respondent No. 1 for which he has no right. The appellant Budharam has raised some construction of a shop over the land of the respondent No. 1. Rameshchand. It was further pleaded that the land purchased by appellant Budharam from Puranmal is different from the land allotted to the respondent No. 1 Rameshchand by respondent No. 2 Gram Panchayat, and for which a `patta' has also been issued. Another Suit No. 88/1999 (13/1991) was filed by plaintiff- respondent Rameshchand against defendants (appellants in Appeal No. 516/2006) Budharam, Ganpat and Jagan, for permanent injunction in the trial Court, wherein it was pleaded that he is the owner of the plot, the description of which is mentioned in the plaint, and the same was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat, Tehla, vide order dated 10th November, 1975, and a `patta' was also issued in his favour. He is in the possession of the said plot also. The appellants herein raised construction over the plot belonging to the respondent Rameshchand during the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd of February, 1991, in the shape of shop/kotdi, measuring 11'4" in length and 9'6" in width of four feet height. It was prayed that the said construction raised by appellants is unauthorized and the same is liable to be demolished,and further they are liable to be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent Rameshchand over the plot, in dispute. Appellants Budharam & others contested the suit of respondent Rameshchand by filing written-statement and it was pleaded that the land was not belonging to Gram Panchayat, Tehla, therefore, Gram Panchayat had no power to allot the same to the respondent Rameshchand.
(3.) THE trial Court framed issues in both the suits separately. Both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 26th April, 2001, dismissed the Civil Suit No. 86/1999 (122/1991) of appellant Budharam. Being aggrieved with the same, Regular First Appeal No. 11/2001 was preferred by appellant Budharam. The learned first appellate Court dismissed the said appeal vide its judgment dated 22nd August, 2006, and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 26. 4. 2001 passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved with the same, the present second appeal No. 518/2006 has been preferred by appellant Budharam. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 2. 5. 2001, partly decreed the Civil Suit No. 88/1999 (13/1991) filed by respondent Rameshchand. The relief relating to permanent injunction was refused,but the suit in respect of mandatory injunction was decreed and it was directed that construction of `kotdi' raised by appellants herein, towards south and west part of the plot of respondent Rameshchand measuring 11'6"x9'9"x4'1" will be demolished and possession thereof will be handed over to respondent Rameshchand. Being aggrieved with the same, appellants Budharam and other preferred Civil First Appeal No. 12/2001. Respondent Rameshchand also preferred cross-objection against refusal of permanent injunction. The first appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 22nd August, 2006, dismissed the appeal as well as cross-objection, both. Being aggrieved with the same, appellants Budharam and two others have preferred S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 516/2006. ;