JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. 1. This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No.321/95, whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants) wherein it was stated that Plot No. B-43 situated at Bassi Sitarampura, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur was allotted to plaintiff on 28.09.1961 by the then Urban Improvement Trust and possession whereof was also handed-over to him. Site-plan was also approved on 31.03.1970. The plaintiff got constructed a Kacchha wall around the plot and also constructed a hut thereon, which on account of heavy rain fell down. In 1982, the Urban Improvement Trust was merged with Jaipur Development Authority. The Basti Sitarampura in which the plot in question was situated was handed-over to the Municipal Corporation. The Officers of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur wanted to dispossess the plaintiff from the said plot. It was submitted that plaintiff had possession over the said plot since 1961, so he became owner of the said plot on account of adverse possession. Plaintiff also sought permission to file the suit without giving two months notice under Section 80(2) CPC. 2. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and also stated that the present suit relates to declaration, so, notice under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act was required to be given. In absence of the notice, the present suit was not maintainable. It was also stated that plaintiff prepared the forged documents. So, the criminal proceedings are also pending against him. 3. In absence of the notice, the present suit was not maintainable. It was also stated that plaintiff prepared the forged documents. So, the criminal proceedings are also pending against him. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k Hkw[k.M la[;k ch&43 cLrh lhrkjkeiqjk ftldh lhek,a okn i= dh en la[;k 1 esa of.kZr gS dks uxj fodkl U;kl }kjk fnukad 28-9-61 dks oknh dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mls bl dk ekSds ij dCtk fn;k x;k Fkk] ftldk og Lokeh gS\ 2- vk;k oknh dk oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij foxr 34 o"kkZsa ls dCtk pyk vk jgk gS vkSj og bldk mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx crkSj Lokeh dj jgk gSA ftl dkj.k og foijhr dCtk ¼,MolZ its’ku½ ds vk/kkj ij bldk Lokeh gks x;k gS\ 3- vk;k uxj fodkl U;kl }kjk oknh ds dCts esa n[ky fn;s tkus ij mlus ,d LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k ftlesa vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkkk dk vuqrks"k tkjh fd;k x;k] bldk nkos ij D;k vlj gS\ 4- vk;k oknh us oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ds lEcU/k esa dwVjfpr nLrkost cuk;s gSa ftl dkj.k bl ij mldk dCtk voS/k ,oa vfrØeh dk gS vkSj bl lEcU/k esa mlds fo#) U;k;ky; vij flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV ¼d-[k-½ Øe&7 t;iqj uxj esa izdj.k yfEcr pyk vk jgk gS bldk nkos ij D;k vlj gS\ 5- vk;k fcuk izfroknh la[;k 1 dks nks ekg dk uksfVl fn;s okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\ 4. The trial court decided the issue No.5 as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that trial court had committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff because plaintiff sought relief of permanent injunction as well as declaration. Permanent injunction was primary relief, so plaintiff was exempted to file the suit without giving two months’ notice under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act because defendant No.1 wanted to dispossess the plaintiff. Plaintiff had possession on the disputed land since 1961, so he became owner on account of adverse possession. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that disputed plot was allotted to the plaintiff by Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur on 28.09.1961 and site-plan was also approved on 31.03.1970. The plaintiff got constructed the boundary wall around the plot in question. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that disputed plot was allotted to the plaintiff by Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur on 28.09.1961 and site-plan was also approved on 31.03.1970. The plaintiff got constructed the boundary wall around the plot in question. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that trial court wrongly dismissed the suit on account of not giving notice under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act. Then the trial court had framed the issues, it had to take evidence on all the issues to decide the suit on merit instead of dismissing the suit on preliminary issue. So, judgment dated 03.11.1997 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside and matter be remanded to the trial court to adjudicate the matter afresh after taking the evidence of the parties. 8. No one has put in appearance for the defendants. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgment. It is an admitted position that plaintiff had filed the suit for declaring him owner of the disputed plot on account of adverse possession and also sought permanent injunction against defendant No.1 on account of dispossessing him. Plaintiff has not given any notice under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act. 10. Defendants in their written statement clearly mentioned that plaintiff had prepared forged documents and criminal proceedings was also pending against him. Without giving any notice under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, the present suit was not maintainable because main relief of the plaintiff was that he should be declared owner of the disputed land on account of adverse possession. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of.