1 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.205/2010 Gopal Singh VS. Teja Ram and ors. Dated : 12.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sudesh Bansal for the petitioner. *** Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgment dated 15th January, 2010 whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant Gopal Singh and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 5th September, 2006 passed in favour of the defendants-respondents and against the appellant, whereby the learned Civil Judge Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur dismissed the suit of the appellant- plaintiff. 2. The nub of the appellant's story is that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents- defendants stating that he purchased one plot measuring 300 Sq.yds from the Gram Panchayat Dayodi. Gram Panchayat Dayodi issued a Patta and site-plan of the said plot on 2nd September, 1990 to the plaintiff and since then he has been in possession thereof. The plaintiff stated that he had gone to Jaipur in connection with his posting there for some time. The defendants-respondents dishonestly availed the opportunity and in his 2 absence started raising construction of a shop on his plot with a view to grab the same. 3. The defendants respondents Tejaram, Nanu Ghayal did not appear in the Court despite the service of summons. However, defendant-respondent No.3 Jitendra Singh appeared in the Court and rebutted the averments made by the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court framed five issues for their determination. The plaintiff-appellant examined three witnesses in support of his case but the defendants-respondents did not examine any witness. After completion of trial, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of plaintiff-appellant. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 5th September, 2006 the plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal against the same which was also dismissed by the learned Addition District Judge Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur vide judgment dated 15th January, 2010, hence, this second appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned judgments of the courts below. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned judgments, it is noticed that the plaintiff-appellant is said to have purchased one plot measuring 300 Sq.Yds. from Gram Panchayat Dayodi on 15th 3 January, 1990. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff utterly failed to identify the plot at the site. The plaintiff also failed to prove that any vacant plot of such discription stated in the suit was at all lying on the site, which was in his said possession. Plaintiff also could not prove that on which plot the defendants-respondents were raising the construction of shop. The site-plan which the plaintiff is found to have produced in the Court, did not tally with the report of the Commissioner. The learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that since the plaintiff failed to prove his possession on any suit plot and he further failed to identify the suit land on the site, dismissed the suit. The learned Appellate Court found the judgment of the learned lower Court to be just and proper, based on cogent and sound reasoning. The learned appellate Court did not think it proper to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal. 6. During arguments, this Court raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether Gram Panchayat allotted the plot to the plaintiff in Aabadi land or in agriculture land ? The learned counsel for the appellant replied that Gram Panchayat Dayodi allotted the plot to the 4 plaintiff out of the agriculture land. It is pertinent to mention that Gram Panchayat does not possess any power to allot any agricultural land to any person. Gram Panchayat is vested with the power to allot only Aabadi land. Hence, the case of the plaintiff, in itself, is found to be frail and fictitious. There is a concurrent finding of fact of two courts below, which is based on sound and cogent reasoning. The plaintiff-appellant is not only found to have failed to prove his case but he has not succeeded even in setting out prima facie case in his favour. The impugned judgments of courts below are found to be just and apt, which warrants no intervention and the civil second appeal deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 7. For the reasons stated above, the civil second appeal fails and the same stands dismissed accordingly. 8. The impugned judgment dated 15th January, 2010 rendered by Additional District Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No.35/2006 is confirmed. 9. No order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. pcg