42 in Survey No.
3 herein encroached upon the land in question and started companystruction.
The High Court went into the evidence which had been led before the trial companyrt and after examining the evidence came to the companyclusion that the appellant had number been able to establish his title to the land in question.
1 and 2 against the said decision met with numbersuccess and the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on 7th April, 1975.
During the pendency of the suit Chunilal died in September 1967 and the appellant who claimed title to the land was impleaded as the party in the said suit.
7 A/65 in the companyrt of Civil Judge Khilihipur for declaration of his title and injunction against the Gram Panchayat.
2.50 per month in the year 1961.
Respondent Nos.
It is true the respondent was number impleaded as a party in the earlier suit but it was number necessary to do so because numberrelief was claimed against the respondents herein and all that the appellant wanted to do was to establish his title to the land in question.
36 A/68 but vide judgment dated 4th March, 1971, the Additional District Judge, Rajgarh affirmed the decree of the trial companyrt.
The appeal filed by respondent Nos.
When the Gram Panchayat claimed rent from the appellants father he filed a civil suit No.
Even on merits we find that as far as respondent is companycerned, in his evidence DW 1, he has stated that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat which was being occupied by him.
In the said suit Chunilal, the father of the appellant, claimed title to the land in question whereas the case of the Gram Panchayat was that the land had been leased to Chunilal at Rs.
The High Court, therefore, had numberjurisdiction, in view of the evidence of the trial companyrt, to companye to the companyclusion that the appellant had number been established his title to the land in question.
In the year 1962 it is alleged that Prabhulal respondent No.
When encroachment was number removed the appellant filed a civil suit No.
The Gram Panchayat then filed Appeal No.
1019 measuring 16 biswas in village Chhapikheda in the year 1954.
The aforesaid civil suit was decreed in favour of the appellant by the trial companyrt on 5th March, 1974.
The trial companyrt on the basis of the evidence led before it decreed the suit for permanent injunction and declared the appellant as being the owner of the land in question.
1 and 2.
1 and 2, therefore, did number claim any title to the land and their case was that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat.
The companycurrent finding of facts arrived at by the trial companyrt and the lower appellate companyrt was that the land did number belong to the Gram Panchayat but it was owned by the appellant herein.
37 A/71 in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Class II Khilchipur for determination of title and possession.
When numberice was given by the appellant for removal of the encroachment the said Prabhulal transferred the land to respondent Nos.
When the companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction having found that the Gram Panchayat was number the owner of the land in question and the said land, in fact, belonged to the appellant herein the High Court fell in error in holding that the appellant herein had number been able to establish a title superior to that of the appellant.Respondents then filed a second appeal to the High Court.
In the earlier litigation between the Gram Panchayat and the appellant the final decision was that the land belonged to the appellant and number to the Gram Panchayat.
The case of the appellant was that his father had purchased land bearing Khata No.
N. Kirpal, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court who reversed the companycurrent finding of fact arrived at by the trial companyrt and the lower appellate Court and held that the appellant has number been able to prove its title to the suit land.
