AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
C.M. No. 3156-C-2012
The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
RSA No. 1184 of 2012 (O & M)
Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant and proforma respondents from demolishing any portion of the property in question for constructing the road or park etc. as they were owners in possession of the suit land and defendants have got no right whatsoever with the same. The suit was contested by the appellant-defendant No. 1 submitting that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit land. Moreover, the suit land was part of T.P. Scheme No. 3-A and was earmarked and reserved for park, roads, streets, etc, which vested in the appellant. It was further pleaded that a part of park, roads and streets etc. still exists at the site and T.P. Scheme No. 3-A was duly developed and approved within the stipulated time and subsequently as per directions of this Court. It was further denied that the said scheme had lapsed and thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
The suit was decreed holding that there exists no T.P. Scheme 3-A, as pleaded by the appellant in its written statement. A finding has been recorded that the appellant-Municipal Council has miserably failed to place on record any evidence to prove the fact that the land in dispute is part of T.P. Scheme No. 3-A. On the other hand, finding has also been recorded whereby ownership of the plaintiff-respondents has been proved on record from the revenue record.
The appeal filed by defendant No. 1 before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed, whereby, the findings of the trial Court were upheld.
Still defendant No. 1 has filed the instant appeal. There is a delay of 237 days in filing and 86 days in re-filing the appeal. Since this appeal is being decided on merits, the aforesaid applications viz. C.M. No. 3157-C-2012 and C.M. No. 3158-C-2012 have become redundant.
Challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record and thus, the impugned judgments and decrees are perverse and therefore, substantial question of law arises as to whether the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be held as perverse.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
On appreciation of evidence, the Courts below have recorded a concurrent findings of fact that the appellant-Municipal Council has failed to produce on record any evidence recorded regarding existence of T.P. Scheme No. 3-A as pleaded in the written statement.
Even before this Court, no such evidence has been shown to support the aforesaid fact.
In view thereof, no exception can be taken to the findings of the Courts below.
No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal. Dismissed.