Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratna Ram vs Jetha And Anr on 26 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:42982]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 341/1998
Ratna Ram s/o Dayaji
By caste Kumhar r/o Pachunda Kalan
Tehsil Sojat District Pali
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jetha s/o Boraji
2. Baludi w/o Pukha
By caste Kumhar r/o Pachunda Kalan
Tehsil Sojat District Pali
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayant Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment Reserved on :: 23/09/2025 Pronounced on :: 26/09/2025
1. The present second appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali as well as the judgment and decree dated 02.06.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sojat whereby the suit for permanent injunction of the plaintiff- appellant has been rejected.
2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit contending that the property over which the plaintiff has ownership and possession, is situated in village Pachunda Kalan. The property was purchased by the plaintiff in an auction held on 23.05.1968 and a sale certificate was issued in this regard. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3, in collusion with defendant No. 4, obtained a Patta in respect of the disputed part of the land through File No. 79/82-83 of Panchayat Khokhra. On this basis, the plaintiff prayed that since the defendants, (Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 01:24:19 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:42982] (2 of 6) [CSA-341/1998] relying on the Patta issued in their favour, are bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff, and therefore, a permanent injunction be issued.
3. The defendants filed their reply denying the averments made in the plaint, contending that the disputed land is the defendants' "Pattasuda" land. They further stated that the plaintiff's sale certificate itself shows that the neighboring land on one side belongs to the defendant, and this fact is recorded in the sale certificate. According to the sale certificate, only the house was purchased by the plaintiff, and no adjacent piece of land was included. Further, the Panchayat issued Patta to them after following due process of law, after issuing public notice. The plaintiff filed objections, which were duly considered and subsequently rejected. On this basis, the Patta was issued. Therefore, the defendants prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
1- vk;k oknxzLr Fkkyk tks okn&i= ds lkFk layXu uD"ksa esa ,-ch-lh- Mh- ekdZ esa n"kkZ;k x;k gS] og oknh dk feydh;rh o dCtk"kqnk gS] ftls oknh us fuykeh esa [kjhn djus ds i"pkr~ ml ij fujUrj dkfct jgkA
---oknh 2- vk;k xzke iapk;r us lkjh dkuwuh izfØ;k dh ikyuk dj rRi"pkr~ oknxzLr ckM+s dk iV~Vk izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa tkjh fd;kA
----izfroknhx.k 3- vk;k oknh us U;k;ky; flfoy dksVZ lkstr ls eqdnek fMØh dh btjk; 41@67 ds tfj;s fuykeh esa fnukad 23-5-68 dks cksyh yxkdj ,d edku [kjhnf d;k Fkk o U;k;ky; }kjk edku dk gh lsy lsfVZfQdsV tkjh fd;kx;k Fkk] ckM+s dk ughaA
-----izfroknhx.k 4- /kkjk 79 jkt-i- vf/k- dk uksfVl ugha nsus ls okn [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA
-----izfroknhx.k 5- nknjlh \ (Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 01:24:19 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:42982] (3 of 6) [CSA-341/1998]
5. Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No. 4 was not considered necessary to be decided as defendant No. 4, the Gram Panchayat, was struck off from the array of parties. Consequently, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 02.06.1997.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.06.1997, the plaintiff-appellant preferred First Appeal No. 14/97, which was also dismissed by the learned appellate court vide its judgment dated 12.08.1998. Against which, the present second appeal has been filed.
7. On 06.07.1999, this Court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether misconstruction of sale certificate (Ex.2) executed by Court in favour of the plaintiff- appellant in respect of land in dispute which is the basis of right and title of the parties can be agitated in second appeal as a substantial question of law. If so, its effects ?
2. Whether the concurrent finding of fact relating to title of the parties on the land in dispute is based on misreading of Ex.2 which leads to the extent of perversity and as such is not binding in second appeal?"
8. The appeal is pending since 1998, and today, when the matter was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Counsel for the respondents made his submissions.
9. Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, and the suit for permanent injunction was rightly rejected after appreciating the material evidence on record in the correct perspective.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 01:24:19 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:42982] (4 of 6) [CSA-341/1998]
10. He further argued that there is no misreading of Exhibit-2 (the sale certificate) on record. It was submitted that the sale certificate Exhibit-2 itself mentions that the house purchased by the plaintiff under the sale certificate is described with reference to its neighboring properties. Specifically, on the northern side of the said property purchased by the plaintiff, Bodji Jethiya Kumhar ka "Bada", belonging to the defendant exists, and on the southern side of the property, Ratania Kumhar ka "Bada" has been indicated. It was further contended that as per the sale certificate, no "Bada" of the plaintiff exists on the northern side; rather, the plaintiff's "Bada" is situated on the southern side of the purchased house.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent also drew the attention of this Court to Exhibit-1, wherein the boundaries as mentioned in the sale certificate Exhibit-2 are matching, except that towards the northern side, the disputed "Bada" has been claimed by the plaintiff. However, the sale certificate itself shows that no "Bada" belonging to the plaintiff exists on the northern side; rather, it belongs to the defendant. Furthermore, in Exhibit-1, the plaintiff has deliberately not indicated any "Bada" owned by him on the southern side. Therefore, he contends that Exhibit-2 (the sale certificate) as well as Exhibit-1 were clearly appreciated by both the learned trial court and the appellate court, and there is no misreading or misconstruction of the documents on record. He accordingly prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that in Exhibit-1, which is a site plan, no length, breadth, or dimensions of the property belonging either to the (Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 01:24:19 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:42982] (5 of 6) [CSA-341/1998] plaintiff or the defendant have been mentioned by the plaintiff. Thus, from a reading of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2, it cannot be ascertained what was purchased by the plaintiff under the sale certificate (Exhibit-2), whether he had possession on the same as shown in Exhibit-1, or possession of any additional land more than that what he purchased. Having failed to mention the length, breadth, and size of the purchased property, and subsequently claiming that the "Bada" on the northern side belonged to him, indicates that the plaintiff deliberately refrained from presenting the correct facts on record for proper comparison with the sale certificate.
13. In the absence of length and breadth in Exhibit-1, this Court can render a finding only with respect to the boundaries, as the boundaries are mentioned in the sale certificate as well as in Exhibit-1. As per the sale certificate (Exhibit-2), it is clearly shown that on the northern side, Bodji Jethiya Kumhar's "Bada" is situated; on the southern side, the "Bada" of Ratniya Kumhar is indicated; towards the eastern side, a way leading to the house and "Bada" is mentioned; and towards the western side, "Khalsa Jameen" is indicated. If the said sale certificate is compared with Exhibit-1, this Court finds that, in the absence of length and breadth, it cannot be concluded that the land on the northern side, as claimed by the plaintiff to be the disputed "Bada", forms part of the property described in the sale certificate (Exhibit-2).
14. So far as the boundaries are concerned, they are matching, and if the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit-2 are matching with those in Exhibit-1, it clearly indicates that the so-called disputed "Bada" cannot belong to the plaintiff, as the "Bada" on the (Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 01:24:19 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:42982] (6 of 6) [CSA-341/1998] northern side of the plaintiff's purchased property belongs to the defendant.
15. Upon a reading of Exhibits 1 and 2, this Court finds that there is no misreading of Exhibit-2 (the sale certificate); rather reading of the sale certificate and conduct of the plaintiff in not mentioning the length, breadth, or size of the property in Exhibit-1 goes to show that the plaintiff intentionally attempted to hide the actual area under his possession at the time of filing the suit. In the absence of the length, breadth, or area mentioned in Exhibit- 1, the plaintiff cannot claim that the disputed property, i.e., the "Bada", forms part of the property covered under the sale certificate (Exhibit-2). Furthermore, since the measurements of boundaries have not been specified by the plaintiff in Exhibit-1, the Court based on the sale certificate alone, concluded that there was no land between the property purchased under the sale certificate and the "Bada" belonging to the defendant. This Court after examination of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 finds that there is no misreading as discussed above and both the questions are answered in negative.
16. Since both the question are answered in negative, the present second appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J praveen/-
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 01:24:20 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)