ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Seamed Additional District Judge, Merta dated 5 -12 -1975.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to his case are that the plaintiff -respondents filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Merta, for declaration that the Nohra situated in village Toonkaliya the boundaries of which have been given in Para 1 of the plaint as under: East: Bhakar of Mataji and thereafter village Pond; West: Pole and vacant piece of land of plaintiff Hari Singh and others; North: Bas of Bhambhis and Nohra of Gangaram; South: Nohra of Hardev Singh and Ranjeet Singh;Section 49 of the Registration Act Section 90 of the Evidence Act Section 13 of the Evidence Act Order 1, Rule 8, CPC is of the plaintiffs and it has been in possession of the plaintiff since long back. Thus, they prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over this Nohra and that the order of the Gram Panchayat, Talanpur dated 14 -6 -1966 may be quashed. In the plaint it is stated that this Nohra which is the subject -matter of the suit is the property of the plaintiffs from the time of his fore -fathers and came to his share in partition. He is in possession of the same since then. Defendants No. 2 to 4 were inimically disposed of towards him and in order to deprive him the suit land they moved an application before the defendant No. 1, Gram Panchayat, Talanpur with the false allegation that the plaintiffs had encroached upon the public way and the defendant No. 1, Gram Panchayat, Talanpur by its order dated 14 -6 -1966 declared the land of the Nohra of the plaintiff to be public way and ordered the demolition of the walls and also fined the plaintiff Rs. 11/ -. This order has been challenged on the ground of malafide and being without jurisdiction. It is also stated that he raised a Pucca walls about 8 to 8 -1/2', on all the four sides. As the defendants were trying to demolish the wall and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, he filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants in their written -statement submitted that this was a public way for the villagers to reach village Pond and it was never in possession of the plaintiffs. On 26 -5 -1966 the plaintiff started constructing walls on the eastern and western sides of this plot of land and defendants No. 2 to 4 made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Talanpur complaining about this obstruction. On 30 -5.1966 the Sarpanch and members of the Gram Panchayat inspected the disputed land and found that the plaintiff encroached over this land. Thereafter, on 14 -6 -1966 the Gram Panchayat, after hearing the plaintiff, directed removal of this encroachment and imposed a fine on the plaintiff It was also submitted that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor was in possession of this land at any point of time. It was also stated that the documents filed by the plaintiff are not genuine and these are inadmissible in evidence.
(3.) THE plaintiff filed an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti and the same was dismissed and thereafter a revision petition was filed before the Collector and the same was also dismissed. Thus, a plea was taken that the order of the Gram Panchayat merged into the order of the Panchayat Samiti and the Panchayat Samiti is not a party in the suit. A plea of limitation was also raised.;