HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 201/2022
1. Patasi Devi W/o Late Hanman, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati
Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
2. Ramlal S/o Late Hanman, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward
No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil,
Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
3. Nandlal S/o Late Hanman, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati
Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
4. Babulal S/o Late Hanman, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati
Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
----Appellants/Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Hemchand S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu. (Deceased)
1/1. Teeja Devi W/o Hemchand, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
1/2. Meenu D/o Hemchand, W/o Ashok Kumar, R/o Badi Dhani
Tan Thoi, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, Distt. Sikar.
1/3. Sushila D/o Hemchand, W/o Moolchand, R/o Kua Lal
Wala, Ward No.08, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
1/4. Pooja W/o Hemchand, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
2. Mukhram S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
3. Ratanlal S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
4. Kishore Kumar S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
5. Jagdish Prasad S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
6. Bajranglal S/o Mohanlal, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
7. Omad S/o Mohanlal, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
(Downloaded on 01/10/2022 at 09:09:40 PM)
(2 of 4) [CSA-201/2022]
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
8. Sanwarmal S/o Boduram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9. Ganpat S/o Shyolaram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu. (Deceased)
9/1. Smt. Sonadi W/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25
Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9/2. Dhundaram S/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25
Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9/3. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Ward No. Hal
25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil,
Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9/4. Deepchand S/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25
Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9/5. Smt. Teeja Devi D/o Late Ganpatram, W/o Durgaprasad,
R/o Kunjdawali Tan Chapoli Tehsil Udaipurwati, Distt.
Jhunjhunu.
9/6. Smt. Ramu Devi D/o Late Ganpatram W/o Girdharilal, R/o
Dhani Duawali Bawadi, Gram Paniharwas Tehsil Khandela,
Distt. Sikar.
10. Devaram S/o Hanman, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
11. District Collector, Jhunjhunu, Through Government Of
Rajasthan.
12. Tehsildar, Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
13. Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu
14. Chairman, Nagarpalika, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Kamlesh Kumari with Mr. Rohitash Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment 30/09/2022
1. Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred the second appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and (Downloaded on 01/10/2022 at 09:09:40 PM) (3 of 4) [CSA-201/2022] decree dated 20.05.2022, passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.24/2020 (78/2018) by the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2018, passed in Civil Suit No.16/2003 by the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), whereby and whereunder appellants-plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for appellants and perused the impugned judgments.
3. Having heard counsel for appellants, it appears that both courts below have concurrently held that appellants claim their possession over the land of Khasra No.498 situated at Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, for which plaintiff (PW-1) Nand Lal himself admits that this land is not recorded in the names of plaintiffs and their possession, to the extent of 4ft wide over the way of 14.5ft wide, has been found as encroachment. Having noticed the encroachment of plaintiffs over the subject land, which is in the nature of having few tin-shed and kacha construction, the suit for permanent injunction filed by appellants-plaintiffs, has been dismissed.
4. Findings recorded by both courts below are based on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. Further, it has also appeared that the Nagarpalika, Udaipurwati, has also issued directions to move such construction of plaintiffs.
5. In view of such fact findings/factual matrix, no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. Hence, no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgments.
(Downloaded on 01/10/2022 at 09:09:40 PM)
(4 of 4) [CSA-201/2022]
6. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Dayal [(2019) 8 SCC 637], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of the facts is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on record and documents, as has been held in para 16 thus:
"16. When any concurrent findings of fact is assailed in second appeal, appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached."
7. After discussions made hereinabove, the present second appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law and the same is bereft of merits, hence as a result the same is hereby dismissed.
8. All other pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SACHIN/9 (Downloaded on 01/10/2022 at 09:09:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)