RSA No.3243 of 1987 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3243 of 1987 Date of Decision:05.05.2010 Hari Ram ...Appellant Versus The Municipal Committee, Narnaul .....Respondent 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes/No. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes/No. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes/No. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Chouhan, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This is the second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant impugning the judgment and decree dated 2.9.1987 passed by First Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Narnaul in Civil Appeal No.473/153 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the Municipal Committee, Narnaul and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff- appellant. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff- appellant had filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction with the allegation that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the property in dispute and had constructed boundary walls and Chapper thereon; defendant-Municipal Committee had issued notice No.364 dated RSA No.3243 of 1987 2 22.04.1980 to the plaintiff for demolition of the property under Sections 181/208/209 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973; Plaintiff had inherited the property in dispute from his father; one Banarsi Dass had got constructed a house in his share of the plots about 10/12 years back after getting sanction from the Municipal Committee and in the map, property was shown in his share. 3. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement; defendant-Municipal Committee has taken specific plea that property in dispute does not belong to plaintiff. In fact, property in dispute is a public thoroughfare over which plaintiff has absolutely no title or right to raise construction. 4. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. However, learned First Appellate Court allowed the first appeal filed by the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by observing that plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the property in dispute. Further grounds taken by the First Appellate Court are (i) even if by presuming that plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute since construction was raised by the plaintiff without getting the map sanctioned (ii) and map submitted by the plaintiff was rejected way back in 1973. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned First Appellate Court has recorded clear cut finding on issue No.1-A that plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence to prove his title over the property in dispute. Learned First Appellate Court further recorded clear-cut finding of the fact that plaintiff himself has submitted a map for sanctioning the construction which was rejected in the year 1973, hence, plaintiff is not able to prove his title over the property in dispute. RSA No.3243 of 1987 3 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since impugned notice was issued to the plaintiff by the Municipality under Section 181/208/209 of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, hence, Municipality cannot challenge title of the plaintiff. Further argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that defendant-Municipality has failed to submit any property register before the Courts below showing title of the Municipality over the property in dispute as a public thoroughfare. 8. This is settled position of law that finding of fact should not be lightly disturbed by the second Appellate Court while exercising power under Section 100 CPC. It is also settled position of law that even if two views are possible view, taken by the Court below should not be disturbed in the second appeal. After discussing entire evidence on record, finding of fact was returned by the First Appellate Court that plaintiff failed to prove his title over the property in dispute. Finding of fact recorded by First Appellate Court on issue No.1-A seems to be justified and correct. 9. In my humble opinion, since, plaintiff fails to prove his title, hence plaintiff is not entitled for any injunction. None can protect construction either raised without map sanctioned or raised over the public land. 10. In view of this, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Appeal is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 05.05.2010 sharmila