Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ladu Ram And Ors vs M C Jaipur And Ors on 1 April, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:13503]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 46/1998
Ladu Ram S/o Shri Badri Narain, aged about 56 years, resident of H-
38, Tagore Path, Banipark, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur through its Mayor, Lalkothi, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
2. The State of Rajasthan, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pareek, Adv with
Ms. Rani Bhandari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None Present
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment :: 01/04/2025
This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff
(for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated
03.11.1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge
No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No.
321/95, whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a civil suit for
declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents-
defendants (for short ‘the defendants) wherein it was stated that
Plot No. B-43 situated at Bassi Sitarampura, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur
was allotted to plaintiff on 28.09.1961 by the then Urban
Improvement Trust and possession whereof was also handed-over
to him. Site-plan was also approved on 31.03.1970. The plaintiff
got constructed a Kacchha wall around the plot and also
(Downloaded on 07/04/2025 at 09:59:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13503] (2 of 4) [CFA-46/1998]
constructed a hut thereon, which on account of heavy rain fell
down. In 1982, the Urban Improvement Trust was merged with
Jaipur Development Authority. The Basti Sitarampura in which the
plot in question was situated was handed-over to the Municipal
Corporation. The Officers of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur wanted
to dispossess the plaintiff from the said plot. It was submitted that
plaintiff had possession over the said plot since 1961, so he
became owner of the said plot on account of adverse possession.
Plaintiff also sought permission to file the suit without giving two
months notice under Section 80(2) CPC.
Defendant No.1 filed written statement and denied the
averments made in the plaint and also stated that the present suit
relates to declaration, so, notice under Section 271 of Rajasthan
Municipalities Act was required to be given. In absence of the
notice, the present suit was not maintainable. It was also stated
that plaintiff prepared the forged documents. So, the criminal
proceedings are also pending against him.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court
framed the following issues:-
1- vk;k Hkw[k.M la[;k ch&43 cLrh lhrkjkeiqjk ftldh lhek,a
okn i= dh en la[;k 1 esa of.kZr gS dks uxj fodkl
U;kl }kjk fnukad 28-9-61 dks oknh dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k Fkk
vkSj mls bl dk ekSds ij dCtk fn;k x;k Fkk] ftldk og
Lokeh gS\
2- vk;k oknh dk oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij foxr 34 o”kkZsa ls dCtk pyk
vk jgk gS vkSj og bldk mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx crkSj Lokeh dj
jgk gSA ftl dkj.k og foijhr dCtk ¼,MolZ its’ku½ ds
vk/kkj ij bldk Lokeh gks x;k gS\
3- vk;k uxj fodkl U;kl }kjk oknh ds dCts esa n[ky fn;s tkus
ij mlus ,d LFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk dk vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k(Downloaded on 07/04/2025 at 09:59:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13503] (3 of 4) [CFA-46/1998]ftlesa vLFkkbZ fu”ks/kkkk dk vuqrks”k tkjh fd;k x;k] bldk nkos
ij D;k vlj gS\
4- vk;k oknh us oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ds lEcU/k esa dwVjfpr nLrkost
cuk;s gSa ftl dkj.k bl ij mldk dCtk voS/k ,oa vfrØeh
dk gS vkSj bl lEcU/k esa mlds fo#) U;k;ky; vij flfoy
U;k;k/kh’k ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV ¼d-[k-½ Øe&7 t;iqj uxj esa
izdj.k yfEcr pyk vk jgk gS bldk nkos ij D;k vlj gS\
5- vk;k fcuk izfroknh la[;k 1 dks nks ekg dk uksfVl fn;s okn
pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\
6- vuqrks”k\The trial court decided the issue No.5 as a preliminary issue
and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that trial court had
committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff
because plaintiff sought relief of permanent injunction as well as
declaration. Permanent injunction was primary relief, so plaintiff
was exempted to file the suit without giving two months’ notice
under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act because
defendant No.1 wanted to dispossess the plaintiff. Plaintiff had
possession on the disputed land since 1961, so he became owner
on account of adverse possession.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that disputed
plot was allotted to the plaintiff by Urban Improvement Trust,
Jaipur on 28.09.1961 and site-plan was also approved on
31.03.1970. The plaintiff got constructed the boundary wall
around the plot in question.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that trial
court wrongly dismissed the suit on account of not giving notice
under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act. Then the trial
court had framed the issues, it had to take evidence on all the
issues to decide the suit on merit instead of dismissing the suit on
(Downloaded on 07/04/2025 at 09:59:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13503] (4 of 4) [CFA-46/1998]
preliminary issue. So, judgment dated 03.11.1997 passed by the
trial court deserves to be set aside and matter be remanded to the
trial court to adjudicate the matter afresh after taking the
evidence of the parties.
No one has put in appearance for the defendants.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgment.
It is an admitted position that plaintiff had filed the suit for
declaring him owner of the disputed plot on account of adverse
possession and also sought permanent injunction against
defendant No.1 on account of dispossessing him. Plaintiff has not
given any notice under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities
Act.
Defendants in their written statement clearly mentioned that
plaintiff had prepared forged documents and criminal proceedings
was also pending against him. Without giving any notice under
Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, the present suit was
not maintainable because main relief of the plaintiff was that he
should be declared owner of the disputed land on account of
adverse possession. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had
not committed any error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff.
So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit,
is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
AVINASH GULERIA/8
(Downloaded on 07/04/2025 at 09:59:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link