HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.154/2014
U I T Alwar And Others
----Defendant-Appellants
Versus
Upendra Singh
----Plaintiff-Respondent
Connected With S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.603/2019 Urban Improvement Trust & Anr.
----Defendant-Appellants Versus Surendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Amar Singh
----Plaintiff-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. advocate assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava Mr. Mohit Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 01/12/2022
1. Heard counsel for both parties.
2. Learned counsel for appellant-UIT has argued that plaintiffs have filed simplicitor suits for permanent injunction alleging that the suit plot is personal declared property of jagirdar Shri Shiv Lal Singh Ji whereas there is no such document/evidence was placed on record to show that the suit property is personal declared property of Shri Shiv Lal Singh Ji. He has argued that the UIT, in his written statement, disputed the plaintiffs' claim and contended that the suit property was included in the jagir property and after the resumption of jagirdari, the same has vested in the State as nazul land. Despite of such stand of UIT in the written statement, (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:42:39 PM) (2 of 3) [CSA-154/2014] plaintiffs never sought any declaration of ownership in respect of the suit plot and continued with the suit for permanent injunction and both courts committed illegality and perversity in decreeing the plaintiffs' suits.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents- plaintiffs has argued that the defence of UIT, the subject property was jagir property and after resumption has been converted into a nazul property, has already been adjudicated in catena of previous cases where the issue has been settled that properties at Shiv Lal Pura, Alwar were not Jagir properties of Shri Shiv Lal Singh Ji but have been held his personal properties. He submits that possession of plaintiffs over the subject plot is not in question and, therefore, the decree impugned required no interference.
4. Having heard counsel for both parties, matters require consideration and both appeals are admitted on following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree are perverse due to misreading, non-reading and misinterpreting the pleadings, documents and statements of the witnesses of the parties as well as due to non-considering and misinterpreting the provisions of law?
2. Whether the issue as to subject property is jagir property of Shri Shiv Lal Singh Ji or his personal property, has already been decided finally on merits in previous several other cases, therefore, plea of UIT is barred by the principle of issue estoppel?"
5. Heard on stay application.
6. Taking into consideration that the subject plot are open plot and in possession of respondents-plaintiffs, both parties shall (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:42:39 PM) (3 of 3) [CSA-154/2014] maintain status quo in respect of the subject plot, as it exists today.
7. Accordingly, the stay application in both appeals stand disposed of.
8. Heard on application No.14080/2018 filed by respondent- plaintiff in SBCSA No.154/2014 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional documents on record.
The copy of judgment dated 31.01.2015 passed in Suit No.72/1998 (203/87) titled UIT, Alwar vs. Firm Bohi Lal Heera Lal is taken on record with liberty to appellant-UIT to file documents in rebuttal. Application No.14080/2018 stands disposed of.
9. Counsel for respondents-plaintiffs states that plaintiffs are deprived to use their property because of pendency of these appeals, therefore, respondents are at liberty to move application for early hearing of appeals.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SAURABH/84-85 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:42:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)