Rajasthan High Court
U I T Alwar And Others vs Upendra Singh on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.154/2014
U I T Alwar And Others
----Defendant-Appellants
Versus
Upendra Singh
----Plaintiff-Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.603/2019
Urban Improvement Trust & Anr.
----Defendant-Appellants
Versus
Surendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Amar Singh
----Plaintiff-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. advocate
assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava
Mr. Mohit Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
01/12/2022
1. Heard counsel for both parties.
2. Learned counsel for appellant-UIT has argued that plaintiffs
have filed simplicitor suits for permanent injunction alleging that
the suit plot is personal declared property of jagirdar Shri Shiv Lal
Singh Ji whereas there is no such document/evidence was placed
on record to show that the suit property is personal declared
property of Shri Shiv Lal Singh Ji. He has argued that the UIT, in
his written statement, disputed the plaintiffs' claim and contended
that the suit property was included in the jagir property and after
the resumption of jagirdari, the same has vested in the State as
nazul land. Despite of such stand of UIT in the written statement,
(2 of 3) [CSA-154/2014]
plaintiffs never sought any declaration of ownership in respect of
the suit plot and continued with the suit for permanent injunction
and both courts committed illegality and perversity in decreeing
the plaintiffs' suits.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-
plaintiffs has argued that the defence of UIT, the subject property
was jagir property and after resumption has been converted into a
nazul property, has already been adjudicated in catena of previous
cases where the issue has been settled that properties at Shiv Lal
Pura, Alwar were not Jagir properties of Shri Shiv Lal Singh Ji but
have been held his personal properties. He submits that
possession of plaintiffs over the subject plot is not in question and,
therefore, the decree impugned required no interference.
4. Having heard counsel for both parties, matters require
consideration and both appeals are admitted on following
substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree are
perverse due to misreading, non-reading and
misinterpreting the pleadings, documents and
statements of the witnesses of the parties as well as
due to non-considering and misinterpreting the
provisions of law?
2. Whether the issue as to subject property is jagir
property of Shri Shiv Lal Singh Ji or his personal
property, has already been decided finally on merits
in previous several other cases, therefore, plea of
UIT is barred by the principle of issue estoppel?"
5. Heard on stay application.
6. Taking into consideration that the subject plot are open plot
and in possession of respondents-plaintiffs, both parties shall
(3 of 3) [CSA-154/2014]
maintain status quo in respect of the subject plot, as it exists
today.
7. Accordingly, the stay application in both appeals stand
disposed of.
8. Heard on application No.14080/2018 filed by respondent-
plaintiff in SBCSA No.154/2014 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for
taking additional documents on record.
The copy of judgment dated 31.01.2015 passed in Suit
No.72/1998 (203/87) titled UIT, Alwar vs. Firm Bohi Lal Heera Lal
is taken on record with liberty to appellant-UIT to file documents
in rebuttal. Application No.14080/2018 stands disposed of.
9. Counsel for respondents-plaintiffs states that plaintiffs are
deprived to use their property because of pendency of these
appeals, therefore, respondents are at liberty to move application
for early hearing of appeals.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/84-85
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
