P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) Appellant-plaintiff, by the instant second appeal under section 100 CPC, has assailed judgment and decree dated 21st of May 2016 passed by Addl. District Judge, Merta (for short, 'learned first appellate Court') dismissing his appeal and affirming judgment and decree dated 16th of April 2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Merta (for short, 'learned trial Court').
(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant instituted a civil suit for perpetual injunction and compensation against respondent Gram Panchayat, inter-alia, on the ground that a plot ad-measuring 2500 sq.ft. (266.66 sq.yards) is in his possession and respondent Gram Panchayat has also issued Patta for the same. In Para 1 of the plaint, neighbourhood of the plot are mentioned with a specific averment that the same is situated within Abadi area of village Gotan. A fact, that on the plot in question since long 23 trolleys of stones and 10 quintal lime-stone is lying, is also incorporated in the plaint. The appellant also stated in the plaint that he has completed requisite formalities for issuance of Patta and same was issued as per Panchayati Raj Rules, 1981. Ventilating his grievances against Administrator of Gram Panchayat, it is pleaded in the plaint that notice is issued to him with oblique motive in colourable exercise to remove stones lying at the plot. The appellant further stated in the plaint that he submitted copy of Patta before the Panchayat but after receiving the same he was threatened to be dispossessed from the plot in question. With these averments, appellant has craved for grant of perpetual injunction against Gram Panchayat not to interfere with his possession and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,950 as cost of the construction material. The respondent Gram Panchayat contested the suit and filed its written statement. In the written statement, Gram Panchayat denied all the averments made in the plaint.
(3.) On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned trial Court framed four issues for determination. For substantiating his case, appellant himself appeared in the witness box and examined five other witnesses and also produced 25 documents. Per contra, on behalf of respondent, their sole witness DW1 Rameshwarlal Joshi appeared in the witness box and produced 10 documents, which were exhibited. Learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments, and by its judgment decided all the issues against appellant.;