Rajasthan High Court
Abdul Rahman Son Of Late Shri Suban ... vs Smt. Aabida Wife Of Late Munshi ... on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 196/2022
1. Abdul Rahman Son Of Late Shri Suban Khan, (since
deceased during pendency of Suit) Through LRs.
1/1. Smt. Najmin Daughter Of Late Shri Abdul Rahman, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of House No. C-254, C-253,
Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
----Appellant-Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Aabida Wife Of Late Munshi Khan, Resident Of
House No. C-253, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri
Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Babu Khan Son Of Late Munshi Khan, Resident Of House
No. C-253, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur.
3. Firoj Son Of Late Munshi Khan, Resident Of House No. C-
253, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Kalu Son Of Late Munshi Khan, Resident Of House No. C-
253, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yunus Khan with
Mr. Bheem Singh Dabla
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
22/08/2022
This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been
filed by the appellant-plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his
civil suit for permanent injunction vide judgment and decree dated
11.12.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in
Civil Suit No.98/18 (51/15), (N.C.V. No.203/2018), which has
been affirmed in the first appeal No.01/2019 (65/2018), (N.C.V.
(2 of 3) [CSA-196/2022]
No.67/2018) by the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur
District, Jaipur vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.2022.
It is not in dispute that the appellant-plaintiff admits that the
suit plot was given to respondent-defendants and who have
constructed their residential house and residing thereupon with
family since 1994. The respondent-defendants happens to be
sister-in-law of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that the appellant-
plaintiff is indisputedly not in possession of the plot in question,
his civil suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by both
courts below.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
appellant has fairly admitted that after institution of the present
suit for permanent injunction, the appellant plaintiff has preferred
a fresh suit for possession being civil suit No.152/2018 (15/16)
titled as Abdul Rahman and Anr. Vs. Smt. Aabida and Anr.
This subsequent suit for possession is presently said to be pending
before the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District,
Jaipur and the next date of hearing is 24.08.2022. The copy of
subsequent suit for possession instituted on 25.01.2016 has been
placed on record.
In view of above, when the appellant-plaintiff has instituted a
suit for possession against the respondent-defendants, this court
does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the impugned
judgments whereby the suit for permanent injunction has been
dismissed on account of fact that the plaintiff is not in possession
of the suit plot.
Learned counsel for appellant-plaintiff submits that findings
recorded in the impugned judgments may not come in way in
deciding the civil suit for possession by the appellant-plaintiff. It is
(3 of 3) [CSA-196/2022]
needless to clarify that findings recorded in the impuged
judgments have been passed in the civil suit for permanent
injunction whereas the subsequent suit is for possession and the
inquiry to title/ownership of the appellant-plaintiff would obviously
be inquired in the subsequently instituted suit for possession and
would be decided accordingly on the basis of its own merits,
hence, no clarification is required.
With the aforesaid, observation, this second appeal is hereby
dismissed.
Any other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/92
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
