State Of Raj vs Lrs Of Tej Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 12978 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 692/2011

State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Nagaur.

----Appellant Versus

1. LRs of Tej Singh S/o Sajjan Singh, Resident of Khinwsar, District Nagaur.

1/1. Gulab Kanwar Widow of Tej Singh Rajput. 1/2. Rewant Singh S/o Tej Singh Rajput Both residents of Khinwsar, District Nagaur.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. L.K. Purohit.
                               Mr. Harshit Bhurani.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. TRS Sodha.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                      Judgment

19/08/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree

dated 18.4.2001 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaur

('the trial court') and judgment and decree dated 16.12.2003

passed by Addl. District Judge, Nagaur ('the appellate court'),

whereby, the suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff for declaration

of ownership and permanent injunction has been decreed and

appeal filed by the State has been dismissed, respectively.

The suit was filed by the plaintiff inter alia with the

averments that land (500 x 500 ft.) situated in khasra no.291

ad-measuring 55.12 bigha was given by way of patta in 1952 by

one Onkar Singh erstwhile Jagirdar to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.31/- and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. The

same was being used for keeping livestock. The boundaries the

the said plot were also indicated in the plaint.

                                            (2 of 5)                     [CSA-692/2011]



     It   was   averred      that     the     officers       of   the    Settlement

Department instead of recording khasra no.233 as Gochar,

indicated the plaintiff's land as Gochar, whereas, the same should

have been recorded as belonging to the plaintiff. It was submitted

that for lack of entry in the records, the plaintiff has not been

permitted to raise the construction. Notice was issued to the State

under Section 80 CPC, however, they have refused to recognize

the plaintiff as owner of the land. Based on the said submissions,

relief of declaration and permanent injunction was sought.

Written statement was filed by the defendant - State and its

officers inter alia indicating that no such plot given by the then

Jagirdar, is situated at Jodhpur - Nagaur road, the land is Gochar

and as such, the same has been rightly recorded, the plaintiff is

not in possession. In special pleas, it was indicated that the

plaintiff was seeking to trespass over the land and as such, the

suit be dismissed.

Based on the averments made by the parties, the trial court

framed six issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, four witnesses were

examined and nine documents were exhibited. On behalf of the

defendants, one witness was examined and three documents were

exhibited.

After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the

conclusion that the land in question was owned by the then

Jagirdar and that patta (Exhibit-4) was issued to the plaintiff on

30.9.1952 and that even if the land in question has been recorded

as Gochar, the ownership of the plaintiff was not affected.

Issue no.2 to 5 were decided together and by indicating that

as the plaintiff is in possession of the land and title is in his favour,

(3 of 5) [CSA-692/2011]

the defendants were not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff and

consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant - State filed first appeal.

The first appellate court by its impugned judgment

thoroughly reconsidered the evidence available on record and

came to a similar conclusion as arrived at by the trial court and

consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the State.

Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make

submissions that the judgments impugned passed by the two

courts below cannot be sustained. Submissions were made that

witness PW/2 - Jugal Kishore appeared in the witness box to

prove the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff, however, he was

not even born on the date the patta was issued and, therefore, his

evidence could not have been believed. It is submitted that patta

issued in favour of the plaintiff is apparently forged.

Further submissions were made that as the land in question

was Gair Mumkin Gochar, the plaintiff had no right over the said

land and as such, the judgments impugned passed by the two

courts below give rise to substantial questions of law.

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the

judgments impugned. It was submitted that the findings recorded

by the two courts below are findings of fact. It was further

emphasized that the allegations about the patta being forged are

baseless and during course of submissions learned counsel has

placed on record a photocopy of certified copy of the patta

obtained from the State Archives, Jaipur and the certified copy

also has been produced for perusal of the Court. It was prayed

that the appeal be dismissed.

(4 of 5) [CSA-692/2011]

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record

as well as record of the trial court.

The plaintiff filed the suit based on the patta having been

issued in his favour seeking declaration of his title over the plot of

land. The State raised two issues disputing the genuineness of the

patta and relying on the fact that land was recorded during

settlement as Gair Mumkin Gochar.

Both the courts below thoroughly by scrutinizing the oral and

documentary evidence, which came on record, has recorded

concurrent finding that the land in question was owned by the

plaintiff.

The submissions made seeking to question the statement of

PW/2 - Jugal Kishore based on the fact that he was not born when

the patta was issued, was negated by the first appellate court

based on his statement, wherein, he has indicated that he had

worked with the person, who had issued the patta for over 15

years and in fact has proved his signatures and not the fact that

the patta was issued in his presence and in view thereof, the

submissions made based on the fact that PW/2 - Jugal Kishore

was not born when the patta was issued, apparently had no

substance. The reasoning of the appellate court can't be faulted.

The submissions made seeking to question the finding

related to validity of patta also apparently has no substance

specially in view of the fact that learned counsel for the

respondents has produced a certified copy of the same patta

issued by the State Archives. In view thereof, the plea sought to

be raised seeking to question the validity of the patta also

apparently has no substance.

(5 of 5) [CSA-692/2011]

So far as the plea regarding recording of the land as Gochar

is concerned, admittedly the patta was issued prior to the

settlement and as such in the settlement even if the land has been

recorded as Gair Mumkin Gochar, ignoring the patta and/or

possession of the plaintiff, the same was of no avail.

In view of the above fact situation, the concurrent judgments

of both the courts below do not give rise to any substantial

question of law. The appeal has no substance. The same is,

therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 31-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)