The judgment of the First Appellate Court reveals that the Municipality had let out only three plots to the Jagirdar, and those three plots together measured 32 x 66 hands unit of measurement .
The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court.
The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under A suit came to be filed for declaration of title and for possession by Respondent No.
However, after the Municipality took over possession, it seems that orderly formation of the plots was undertaken.
It was also number disputed that the plaintiff did number have possession as on the date of filing of the suit, inasmuch as he has alleged that he was wrongly dispossessed by the defendant on 30.04.1972, prior to filing the suit.
In order to prove possession of the property, the plaintiff relied upon the rent numbere Ex.
4, Plot No.
These were numbered as Plot No.
After the system of Jagirdari was abolished, these jagirs were resumed in the year 195556.
5 was retained by Purkha Ram.
A6 dated 06.02.1956, executed by the original owner Khoom Singh in favour of Purkha Ram, and Ex.
Per companytra, the defendants relied on two sale deeds, viz.,
Thus, each plot measured 32 x 22 hands.
1 makes much of the old body of a motor vehicle belonging to him lying on the property.
18 of 2006, dismissing the same, are called in question in this appeal by the unsuccessful defendants.
After the resumption of the jagir, it seems that the Barmer Municipality established a planned and wellmanaged companyony named Nehru Nagar on the said land.
Ex.12, Ex.
13 and Ex.
While a few persons companytinued in illegal possession, others had purchased parts of the land from the Jagirdar, and the remaining land vested in the State Government and municipalities.
The official record survey map , Ex.
In sale deed Ex.
12 first survey reveals that Moti Ram was in possession of the land, the plot to the east of which was possessed by Nawala Harijan and in the east of Nawala Harijans plot, possession of Purkha Ram to recall, predecessor ininterest of the defendants on the site has been indicated.
1 and the appellant herein.
However, according to the plaintiff, he had been wrongly dispossessed by defendants on 30.04.1972, which was within the 12 years preceding the filing of the present suit.
Though there was some companyfusion raised by the plaintiff with regard to the boundaries of the property in question, the First Appellate Court being the final companyrt of fact, on due appreciation of the entire material on record, gave a definite finding that the Trial Court was number justified in decreeing the suit, and observed that Purkha Ram was in possession of the property in question even prior to 1966, and had sold the same through registered sale deed in June 1966 vide Ex.
7, reveals that it was owned by Poona Ram, who is Defendant No.
A2 dated 21.06.1966, executed by Purkha Ram in favour of the appellant Defendant No.
1 herein.
1, which shows that the plot in question was let out by the plaintiff to one Joga Ram in the year 1967.
A perusal of Ex.
It is also relevant to numbere that sanction for companystructing the house was given to Purkha Ram in the year 1957.
On 12.05.1967, a fire broke out and the entire fodder stored on the plot got burnt.
This sale deed shows the measurement of the land, which companyresponds to the plots in question approximately.
One of these, being Plot No.
14, which relates to the plot in question, i.e., Plot No.
A6, three plots have been mentioned as plots of three houses.
5 and Plot No.
4 was sold to Teja Ram and the third plot being Plot No.
The disputed site is Plot No.
Undisputedly, the Signature Not Verified plaintiff Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.01.29 171158 IST Moti Ram had numberdocument of title to prove his Reason possession, but claimed possessory title based on prior possession for a number of years.
7, was sold by Purkha Ram to the appellant, one plot being Plot No.
Thereafter, the plot was kept vacant.
14 are the survey maps of the Municipality.
Thus, it is clear that the plots of land owned by Khoom Singh, in possession of these persons, were number uniformly situated.
Obviously, such sanction would have been accorded only on the basis of title and possession of the property.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The judgment dated 28.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Civil Second Appeal No.
97 of 1984 and the companycurrent judgment dated 10.10.2006 in Civil Review Petition No.
