Udailal @ Udairam vs Rameshwarlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 11080 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 107/2022

Udailal @ Udairam S/o Kanhaiyalal Swarnkar, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Kuraj, Tehsil Railmagra, Distt. Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Rameshwarlal S/o Vardichand Sankhla, Aged About 60 Years, R/
o Kuraj, Tehsil Railmagra, Distt. Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain
                               Mr. Dinesh Chandra Mal
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. D.K. Godara



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                             JUDGMENT

PRONOUNCED ON                            :                        31.08.2022
RESERVED ON                              :                        01.08.2022

The present appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff under

Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against judgment and

decree dated 05.05.2022 passed by learned District Judge,

Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') in

Civil Appeal No.16/2016 whereby, judgment and decree dated

13.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court')

in Civil Suit No.47/2013 (30/2012) was affirmed.

Brief facts necessary for the purpose of present appeal are

that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction

against respondent-defendant before learned Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Rajsamand stating inter alia that the plot in question

situated at Village Kuraj on the western side of Railmagra was

(2 of 3) [CSA-107/2022]

allotted to the appellant-plaintiff by the Tehsildar vide file dated

01.10.1984.

The respondent-defendant in his written statement denied

the averments made in the plaint stating that the plot in question

does not belong to the appellant-plaintiff and it was allotted to him

by the Gram Panchayat vide patta dated 28.03.1984. It was

further stated that Tehsildar had no power to allot Abadi land,

which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat.

The trial court framed as many as 3 issues and dismissed the

suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.05.2016. The court held

that the appellant-plaintiff is neither in possession of the disputed

plot nor placed any document to prove possession over the

disputed plot. On the contrary, documents produced by the

respondent-defendant prove that prior to 01.10.1984, the

disputed land was converted to Abadi and he is in possession of

the plot pursuant to the patta dated 28.03.1984, issued by Gram

Panchayat.

Thereupon, the appellant-plaintiff filed appeal against the

order dated 13.05.2016 which also came to be dismissed by the

learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated

05.05.2022 affirming the findings of fact arrived at by the learned

Trial Court. The learned Appellate Court after appreciating the

evidence placed before it held the findings of fact recorded by the

Trial Court to be unerring.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff contended that

the judgments of courts below were passed ignoring the oral and

documentary evidence placed before them.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant

supported the judgments passed by courts below.

(3 of 3) [CSA-107/2022]

Having considered the submissions advanced at Bar and

upon perusal of judgments impugned, this Court is of the opinion

that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court considered the oral

and documentary evidence in an apropos manner. The appellant-

plaintiff failed to challenge the patta dated 28.03.1984 issued to

respondent-defendant by the Gram Panchayat. Further, the

appellant-plaintiff failed to prove possession over the plot in

question either by oral or documentary evidence. A bare perusal

of the findings recorded by the Trial Court shows that the plot in

question had been converted to abadi before 01.10.1984, and

Gram Panchayat having requisite jurisdiction issued patta to

respondent-defendant on 28.03.1984.

This Court finds no perversity in the findings of facts arrived

at by the Courts below. No question of law, much less, any

substantial question of law is involved requiring adjudication by

this Court, in the instant Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the result, the present second appeal is dismissed being

devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 17-KshamaD/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)