JUDGMENT : RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.8.1994 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Civil First Appeal No.7/92 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and upheld the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1992 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Salumber in Civil Original Case No.17/81 whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.1981 the appellant filed a civil suit for injunction before the trial court on the ground that he is in peaceful possession of disputed land and the said land does not fall within the jurisdiction of respondent- Municipal Board, Salumber, but the defendant, without jurisdiction, is going to dispossess him from disputed land, so injunction may be granted against the respondent-defendant. The defendants disputed all the facts mentioned in suit and contended that the disputed land is situated in municipal area and Municipal Board, Salumber is owner of the disputed land and plaintiff has made encroachment over the said land, so the defendant removed the encroachments made by the plaintiff on the disputed land on 3.11.1971, however, the plaintiff again unauthorisedly gained possession of the said property for which the defendants registered a case against the plaintiff. The defendant also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff did not give two months' notice to the defendant under Section 279 of the Municipalities Act. The defendants also stated in their reply that they have right to remove the encroachments made over the said land and prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be rejected. 3. The defendant also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff did not give two months' notice to the defendant under Section 279 of the Municipalities Act. The defendants also stated in their reply that they have right to remove the encroachments made over the said land and prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be rejected. 3. The trial court after going through the material and evidence available on record framed the followed issues :- 1- vk;k okn ds isjk uEcj&1 esa of.kZr IyksV vkjkth uEcj 1203 fcyk uke ljdkj 48 QqV Xkq.kk 44 QqV dk oknh ds dCts ,oa vf/kdkj dk gS\A & oknh 2- vk;k ;g oknxzLr IyksV uxjikfydk {ks= esa gS] vkSj gYds vkcknh esa Hkwfe gksdj uxjikfydk ds LokfeRo dh gS] ftl ij oknh us vukf/kd`r vfrdze.k dj j[kk gS\ &izfroknh 3- vk;k okn ds vuqlkj fcykuke ljdkj dh Hkwfe ds fo"k; esa bl U;k;ky; dks ;g okn lquus dk vf/kdkj ugh gS\ &izfroknh 4- vk;k bl oknxzLr IyksV dh dher 20]000@& 0 ls de ugha gksus ls bl U;k;ky; dks ;g okn lquus dk vf/kdkj ughs gS\ &izfroknh 5- vk;k okng }kjk uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 271 ds rgr nks ekg dk uksfVl fn, fcuk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSa\ &izfroknh 6- vk;k izfroknh dks /kkjk 203 uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e ds rgr fcuk nhokuh vnkyr ls fMdzh izkIr fd, oknh dk dCtk gVkus dk vf/kdkj gS\ &izfroknh 7- vk;k oknh }kjk vius LokfeRo ,oa LoRo dh ?kks"k.kk dh benkn ekaxs cxSj vius vkidks vfrdze.kh crkrs gq, ;g fu’ks/kkKk dk okn ykus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ughs gSa] tcfd oknh ds fo:) uxjikfydk }kjk fof/kor~ djds vfrdze.k gVk;k tk jgk gS\ &izfroknh 8- nknjlhA^^ 4. The plaintiff adduced three witnesses and the defendant also adduced three witnesses. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decided the issues No.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 against the plaintiff and issue No.5 against the defendant and dismissed the suit vide order dated 1.6.1992 in Original Civil Suit No.17/1981. 5. After dismissal of the said suit, the appellant feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the District Judge, Udaipur, the same being Civil First Appeal No.7/1992 was thereafter transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur. 6. 5. After dismissal of the said suit, the appellant feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the District Judge, Udaipur, the same being Civil First Appeal No.7/1992 was thereafter transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur. 6. By order dated 22.8.1994, the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Salumber. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, the appellant filed this second appeal before this Court. In this second appeal the coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of admitting this appeal determined the following substantial questions of law for consideration on 17.2.1995 and granted interim order in favour of the plaintiff:- "1. Whether the Municipality can exercise powers in the area which had legally not been transferred to them nor has vested in them? 2. Whether the provisions contained in 203 of the Raj. Municipalities Act authorised Municipal Board to take adequate steps in removing or dis-possession and a person over that part of the property which had never become a Municipal Property or had never vesting in them? 3. That whether in the instant case there was any permission by a person so appointed or authorised by the State Govt. in favour of the Municipal Board Salumber to proceed in the matter without deciding as to who was the authorised persons?" 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused both the judgments and oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial court as well as learned first appellate court have failed to decide the issue No.2 as framed in the suit and did not consider the relevant evidence about issue No.2. He has further contended that the first appellate court has failed to decide the every issue separately, as the provisions are mandatory to decide every issue separately by the appellate court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that in trial court the appellant has proved his case that the disputed land is in his possession since long and respondent is not owner of the said land nor respondent has any right to dispossess the appellant from the said land. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that in trial court the appellant has proved his case that the disputed land is in his possession since long and respondent is not owner of the said land nor respondent has any right to dispossess the appellant from the said land. It is also contended that respondent has failed to prove that the disputed land is within the jurisdiction of Municipal Board and the same is in its possession. 10. The respondent failed to prove that on what basis and under which authority, it has dispossessed the plaintiff from the disputed land. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first appellate has not decided the every issue separately, so the judgment itself is vitiated and is not tenable. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out that without deciding every issue separately what illegality has been committed by the first appellate court. 12. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that respondent has no right to remove the possession of the appellant-plaintiff because the disputed land is not recorded in the name of Municipality. Since Nagar Palika, Salumber is owner of the said land, the same cannot be treated as municipality land. The Sub-Divisional Officer has recommended for conversion and issued an order for handing over the possession of the said land to the Municipality. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is not tenable because according to documents Exhibits A/4, A/5 and A/6, the disputed land is in the name of respondent-Nagar Palika, Salumber and according to Exhibit A/9, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Salumber empowered the respondent to dispossess the appellant from the disputed land. 13. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the plaintiff is trespasser, so he is not entitled to get any injunction against the respondent. He has also contended that as per Ex.5, the said land is situated in the area of respondent-Municipal Board, Salumber. It is also contended that in pursuance of order Ex.9 passed by S.D.O., the respondent- Municipal Board, Salumber has dispossessed the appellant so it cannot be said that the respondent has acted without any authority or jurisdiction. 14. He has also contended that as per Ex.5, the said land is situated in the area of respondent-Municipal Board, Salumber. It is also contended that in pursuance of order Ex.9 passed by S.D.O., the respondent- Municipal Board, Salumber has dispossessed the appellant so it cannot be said that the respondent has acted without any authority or jurisdiction. 14. Upon perusal of the record, it is clear that in this case, it is admitted position that the appellant-plaintiff is trespasser and respondent Nagar Palika removed the encroachments of the appellant-plaintiff in the year 1971 and thereafter he again trespassed over the same land. 15. Upon perusal of the plaint, it is also clear that the plaintiff has not clearly stated that how he got and who handed over him the possession and for how many long period he is in possession of the said land. Even he has not clearly stated that what construction he has made over the said land. 16. Upon perusal of the record, it is also clear that on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, written arguments were also filed in the trial court on 1.6.1992, in which he admitted that he is trespasser over the disputed land, but he failed to prove that on what basis he has gained the possession over the said land. 17. For the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that it is irregularity, then it can be rectified by the competent authority. The plaintiff cannot take advantage of irregularity committed by any authority. When the plaintiff came in the court on the basis of long possession over the disputed property, then it was his duty to prove that he had in long and legal possession over the said land, but the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove his long and legal possession over the said land and he also admitted this fact that first time in the year 1973, the respondent dispossessed him and again he took possession over the said land in 1980, so it is clear that the plaintiff is repeated trespasser over the said land. The plaintiff is not in legal possession over the said land and he is a trespasser. 18. The plaintiff is not in legal possession over the said land and he is a trespasser. 18. It is settled law that a trespasser is not entitled for any injunction as he has not acquired any right or interest in the said property irrespective of his long possession and even if he is in long possession over the said land, it would also be of no legal consequences. The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a trespasser. The protection of the Court can never be granted or extended to a person, who has long illegal possession. The appellant-plaintiff Mohammed Suleman has utterly failed to establish that the disputed land is in his possession since long time and his possession is legal. It is admitted fact that the appellant-plaintiff has no title over the land in question. 19. The possession of the plaintiff is wholly unlawful, he is trespasser and injunction could not be granted in favour of a trespasser or a person, who gained unlawful possession. It is admitted fact that the appellant-plaintiff has no title over the land in question. 19. The possession of the plaintiff is wholly unlawful, he is trespasser and injunction could not be granted in favour of a trespasser or a person, who gained unlawful possession. The learned appellate court in its judgment dated 22.8.1994 has elaborately narrated as under:- ^^12- vc iz'u ;g jg tkrk gS fd D;k ,slh Hkwfe Hkh jkT; ljdkj dh Hkwfe gS] uxjifj"kn~ vfrdze.k gVkus ds fy, l{ke gSA /kkjk 203 jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e 1959 ds lc DykWt 2 esa cksMZ dks ;g vf/kdkj fn;k x;k gS fd ,slh Hkwfe ls Hkh vfrdze.k gVkus ds fy, l{ke gS tks O;fDxr lEifr ij ugha gS] pkgs og Hkwfe cksMZ esa fufgr gS vFkok ugha] c'krsZ dh ,slh og Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj esa fughr gks rks bl gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/kd`r vFkok fu;qDr vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ls gh vfrdze.k gVk;k tk ldrk gSA bl izko/kku ls ;g ckr Li"V gS fd O;fDrxr Hkwfe vFkok ,slh Hkwfe tks uxjifj"kn~ esa fughr ughs gS vFkok jkT; ljdkj esas fughr gS] ml ij gq, vfrdze.k dks gVkus ds fy, Hkh cksMZ l{ke gSA ;fn vihykFkhZ ds bl dFku dks ekus Hkh fy;k tkos fd oknxzLr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gS vkSj jkT; ljdkj dh Hkwfe gS rks Hkh jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu;qDr vFkok vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ls uxjifj"kn ,slh Hkwfe ls vfrdze.k gVk ldrh gSA blds fy;s uxjikfydk lywEcj ds vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh us mu [k.M vf/kdkjh lywEcj dks i= fnukad 20-05-91 izn'kZ ,&9 fy[kdj mudh Lohd`fr izkIr dj yh FkhA ,slh voLFkk esa ge vihykFkhZ ds fon~oku vf/koDrk ds bl rdZ ls lger ugha gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe ls vihykFkhZ&oknh dks fu”dkflr djus ds fy;s uxjikfydk lywEcj l{ke ugha gSA 14- mi;qZDr foospu ls ge bl fu"d"kZ ij igqpsa pqds gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe uxjikfydk esa fufgr ughs gqbZ gS ijUrq uxjikfydk lywEcj dks ;g vf/kdkjh gS fd og ,slh Hkwfe tks jkT; ljdkj esa fughr gS ls jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu;qDr vFkok vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ls vfrdze.k gVk nsa] blfy, ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd vihykFkhZ ds fo:) tks dk;Zokgh uxjikfydk lywEcj }kjk dh xbZ gS og fof/kd izko/kkuksa ls lefFkZr ughsa gSaA vihykFkhZ dh gSfl;r ,d vfrdzeh dh gS vkSj og vfrdzeh dks okLrfod Lokeh ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk O;kns'k izkIr ughs gks ldrk gSA vihykFkhZ ,d vksj rks ;g ekurk gS fd ;g Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gS vkSj nwljh vksj bl Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr fookn dks flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk r; djkuk pkgrk gSA fon~oku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkh vius vk{ksfir fu.kZ; esa ;g ekuk gS fd tc vihykFkhZ&oknh] oknxzLr Hkwfe uxjikfydk dh u gksdj jkT; ljdkj dh Hkwfe ekurk gS rks bl Hkwfe ds lac/k esas okn jktLo U;k;ky; esa gh izLrqr djuk pkfg;s Fkk D;ksafd fcykuke ljdkjh Hkwfe ds fo"k; esa bl U;k;ky; dks okn lquus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA bl laca/k esa gekjk Hkh ;gh er gS fd ;fn vihykFkhZ&oknh ;g ekurk gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe vkcknh Hkwfe ugha gS vkSj jktLo Hkwfe gS rks mlds laca/k esa fookn dk fulrkj.k djus gsrq l{ke U;k;ky; jktLo U;k;ky; gh gks ldrk gSA^^ 20. I do agree with the observation of the first appellate court in connection with the above arguments. Contrary to this, on perusal of Exhibits A/4, A/5 and A/6, the disputed land is in the name of respondent Nagar Palika, Salumber and it is the owner of the disputed land and according to Ex.A/9, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Salumber empowered to the respondent for dispossessing to the appellant-plaintiff from the disputed land due to his encroachment. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premji Ratansey Shah & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 1994 5 SCC 547 has held that :- "Civil - Injunction - Plaintiff filed suit for injunction not to interfere with their possession - However, High Court dismissed suit of injunction - Hence, this Appeal - Whether, an injunction could be issued against true owner - Held, - Courts below had rightly rejected relief of declaration and injunction in favour of Petitioners who had no interest in property - However, their possession was wholly unlawful possession of trespasser and an injunction could not be issued in favour of trespasser or person who gained unlawful possession, as against owner - Pretext of dispute of identity of land should not be an excuse to claim injunction against true owner -Thus, injunction would not be issued against true owner - Hence, there was no ground warranting interference with judgments and decrees of courts below - Appeal dismissed". 22. Having perused the judgments and evidence available on record, this Court is satisfied that the courts below have not misread any evidence nor the findings of facts of the courts below can be said to be perverse. The courts below have rightly come to the concurrent finding that the appellant-plaintiff is trespasser and he is not in long legal possession over the said land. 23. In view of the above discussions, no interference is called for by this Court in concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. No substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. The trial court and the first appellate court were justified in rejecting the plaint of the appellant-plaintiff. The substantial questions of law framed above by this Court deserve to be answered against the appellant-plaintiff and same are accordingly answered against the appellant-plaintiff. 24. No substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. The trial court and the first appellate court were justified in rejecting the plaint of the appellant-plaintiff. The substantial questions of law framed above by this Court deserve to be answered against the appellant-plaintiff and same are accordingly answered against the appellant-plaintiff. 24. Under these circumstances, I do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below, so this second appeal deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The stay application is also rejected. 25. No order as to costs.