Bhim Singh v. Municipal Committee Farrukh Nagar And ANR

"15. It is very essential to prove title of the suit land. As discussed above document with regard to the title are not proved by either side, plaintiff had to prove his case by leading cogent, convincing and sufficient evidence and with regard to the question of title plainiff had relied upon the document (Ex.D8) which is municipal receipt wherein it is shown that total area of plaintiff's plot is 240 square yards. First of all to measurement of the property of plaintiff are given in the said document, secondly, municipal corporation/ municipal committee record containing entries is maintained for fiscal purpose like property tax/ house tax etc. and can not decide the question of title.

16 Further in the cross-examination of plaintiff himself as PWI, deposed that earlier he was employee under municipal committee and further deposed that while addition to the construction already raised by his father, he had got no site plan passed from the defendant. Further as per the deposition of PW3 site plan (Ex.PI) was prepared by not visiting the spot but merely on the instruction of the plaintiff. So, on the case file no document of title showing measurements of the property of plaintiff is proved. Nature of the construction upon the suit land/disputed land is in temporary nature and as discussed above possession of vacant land goes with ownership.

17. Thus, in light of the above discussion, plaintiff has failed to prove his case by leading cogent, convincing and sufficient

RSA-726-2018 (O&M) -4evidence, hence, issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants."