Murlidhar vs Prakash Chandra Kasliwal (Died)
2022 Latest Caselaw 6028 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.27/1987

Murlidhar
                                                     ----Defendant-Appellant
                                   Versus
Prakash Chandra Kasliwal (Died) & Anr.
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.441/1996 Smt.mukand Kanwar & Ors.

----Appellants Versus Thakurji Shri Raghunathji Virajman Katala Purohitji & Ors.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.369/1998 Thakurji Shri Raghunathji Virajman, Katala Purohit Ji, & Anr.

----Appellants Versus Smt Mukund Kanwar And Ors.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Banwari Singh for Mr. G.S. Bapna, Sr. Advocate for appellant-defendant in SBCSA No.27/1987 For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemendra Singh for defendant-respondent No.2 in SBCSA No.27/1987 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal for respondent No.1-plaintiff in SBCSA No.27/1987

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 31/08/2022

In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.27/1987 :-

Instant second appeal arises out of a civil suit for permanent

injunction in relation to roof of the suit property and for demolition

of a wall constructed on the roof and the suit was partially decreed

by the trial court vide judgment dated 30.09.1983. The trial court,

(2 of 4) [CSA-27/1987]

passed a decree for permanent injunction against both,

defendants-Purohit Ramswaroop and Murlidhar, restraining them

not to raise any construction nor create any hindrance/obstruction

in use of the roof by plaintiff. Simultaneously, the trial court in its

judgment dated 30.09.1983, observed that defendant No.2-

Murlidhar would have right to continue his movement through the

naal and roof for reaching the temple. The plaintiff's suit for

mandatory injunction, seeking demolition of the wall on the roof

was dismissed.

Plaintiff-Raj Kumar Sethi and defendant No.2-Murlidhar both

challenge the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1983 by filing two

separate first appeals. Both first appeals have been decided vide

common judgment dated 28.02.1987. The first appeal No.2/1984

filed by defendant No.2-Murlidhar has been dismissed but the first

appeal No.1/1984, filed by plaintiff has been allowed and thereby

the first appellate court, while affirming the decree of permanent

injunction passed in favour of plaintiff, also directed that the wall

in question constructed on the roof of plaintiff be demolished and

further the portion of the trial court's order, affirming the right to

defendant No.2 being his movement through the roof and naal for

reaching the temple was quashed.

The defendant No.2-Murlidhar has preferred this second

appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1987 as

also the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1983.

Learned counsel appearing for appellant seeks

accommodation for a week.

Counsel appearing for respondent-plaintiff has no objection.

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 (defendant No.1)-Purohit

(3 of 4) [CSA-27/1987]

Swaroop Narain through legal representatives also has no

objection.

In S.B. Civil Second Appeal Nos.441/1996 & 369/1998 :-

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.441/1996 arises out of a civil

suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction instituted by and on

behalf of Thakurji Shri Raghunathji Virajman against Shri Swaroop

Narayan Purohit Ji and Prakash Chandra Kasliwal and Rajkumar

Sethi which was decreed vide judgment dated 30.09.1983 and

defendant No.1- Shri Swaroop Narayan Purohit Ji through his legal

representatives have been injuncted not to raise any

hindrance/obstruction to the temple (plaintiff) in using the roof in

question as also the construction available on the roof be

removed. The suit of temple, in relation to latrine (tarat) was

dismissed. No decree for permanent injunction or any other

decree was passed against defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Prakash

Chandra Kasliwal and Rajkumar Sethi.

Against judgment and decree dated 30.09.1983, the legal

representatives of defendant No.1 preferred first appeal

No.56/1993 and plaintiff-temple preferred first appeal

No.55/1993. Both appeals were heard together and decided vide

common judgment dated 02.09.1996 whereby both first appeals

have been dismissed and judgment of the trial court has been

affirmed.

The plaintiff temple has preferred second appeal

No.369/1998 challenging the judgment and decree dated

02.09.1996 and 30.09.1983 to the extent of findings in relation to

issue Nos.3, 7 and 11 relating to dismissal of suit for demolition of

the latrine (tarat) and has prayed for decreeing the suit as a

whole.

(4 of 4) [CSA-27/1987]

On joint request of counsel for both parties, list these

appeals on 06.09.2022 in "supplementary list" with understanding

that learned counsel for both parties shall remain ready on the

next date and would not seek adjournment.

Learned counsel for both parties may submit the written

submissions in brief, prior to next date of hearing, if so desires.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/68-70

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)