IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 21 of 2009 [ 1. Smt. Chandra Kala Pant W/o Sri Charan Dutt Pant 2. Naveen Pant S/o Sri Charan Dutt Pant 3. Siddhartha Pant S/o Sri Charan Dutt Pant All R/o Jagdamba Nagar, Haldwani, District Nainital. 4. Usha Pant D/o Sri Charan Dutt Pant R/o Purniya Kuti, Jagdamba Nagar, Haldwani, District Nainital. 5. Smt. Lalita Pandey D/o Sri Charan Dutt Pant W/o Sri Harsh Pandey R/o Amravati Colony, R/o Near Khatri Aata Chakki, Haldwani, District Nainital. 6. Manju Pant D/o Sri Charan Dutt Pant W/o Capt. Madan Mohan, R/o Amravati Colony, Near Khatri Aata Chakki, Haldwani, District Nainital. 7. Smt. Ila Pant D/o Sri Charan Dutt Pant W/o Sri Mahendra Nath Pant R/o Rajrooppur, Allahabad (U.P.). 8. Smt. Kamla Pant D/o Sri Charan Dutt Pant W/o Sri Nand Nandan Prasad Pandey, R/o Office of Director of Education, Mayur Vihar, District Dehradun. ...…………. Plaintiffs / Appellants Versus Municipal Board, Haldwani / Kathgodam Through its Executive Officer, Municipal Office, Haldwani, District Nainital. ...………… Defendant / Respondent 2 Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants. 2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th of November 2008, passed by the first appellate court (Addl. District Judge / I F.T.C., Haldwani), in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1976. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (Charan Dutt Pant) filed Suit No. 322 of 1970, against Municipal Board, Haldwani, seeking injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the disputed wall raised by him. The Plaintiff had pleaded in the plaint that he is owner in possession of the land in suit. On the other hand, the defendant Municipal Board took up the plea in the written statement that the land was a Nazul land which vested in it. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 31st of August 1976, decreed the suit. But the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.11.1978, passed in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1976, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title over the land in dispute. It appears that 3 in the earlier round of litigation the plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 273 of 2001, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2007, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision to the first appellate court with the direction that the plaintiff be given one more opportunity to file the title deeds relating to property in suit. The first appellate court has again decided the civil appeal holding that the plaintiff could not file any title deed in respect of the property in suit, and failed to prove his title. 4) In the above circumstances, it is a clear case where the first appellate court had twice after appreciating the evidence gave finding of fact that the plaintiff failed to prove his title, and the suit for injunction against the Municipal Board restraining it from demolishing the wall for the plaintiff, was dismissed. 5) In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to admit this appeal. The questions of law raised are not involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 3792 of 2009 also stands dismissed, accordingly). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 20, 2009. H. Negi