Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/O Raj Kumar vs Mahaveer Prasad S/O Bansidhar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4640 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 145/2022

Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/o Raj Kumar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Ward No. 16 Khetri, Tehisl Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
                                                          ----Appellant-Plaintiff
                                   Versus
1.     Mahaveer Prasad S/o Bansidhar, Resident Of Ward No. 16
       Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2.     Vimla Devi W/o Mohan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 16
       Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3.     Suresh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 16
       Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4.     Harphool S/o Bansidhar, Resident Of Ward No. 16 Khetri,
       Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5.     Harish Kumar S/o Babu Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 16
       Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
6.     Municipal Corporation Khetri, Through Executive Officer
       Municipal    Corporation           Khetri       Tehsil    Khetri    Distt.
       Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
7.     Chairman Municipal Corporation Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt.
       Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
8.     Raghuveer Singh S/o Ram Prasad Yadav, R/o Ram
       Cement Store, Near Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, Tehsil
       Buhana Distt. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                    Order

08/07/2022

1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under

Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, assailing the judgment and

decree dated 23.03.2022 passed by Additional District Judge,

(2 of 4) [CSA-145/2022]

Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Civil Regular First Appeal No.24/2016

whereby and whereunder appeal has partly been allowed and

judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016 passed by Senior Civil

Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No.39/2012

instituted by appellant-plaintiff has been modified and finally the

following decree has been passed in favour of appellant-plaintiff

and against private respondent-defendant Nos.1 to 5:-

"परिणामतः वादिया का वाि ववरुद्ध प्रवतवाितिवादीगण गण सीगण सं संखा . 1 लगायत 4 सायतिवादी व निषिषेधाजा व आजापक आििषेश देश सतिवादीकाि वकया किया जाकि इगण स किि मय खर मय खरद द डिकिक्री वकया किया जाता ा हता है किक्री प्रवतवाितिवादीगण गण सीगण सं संखा 1 लगायत 4 दािा वादिया किषे आधधपत्य किषे मका नि किषे िधदक्षिण किक्री औि र ससत तित तथा प्रवतवाितिवादीगण गण साीगण सं संख 1 गण सिषे 4 किषे उत्ति किक्री औि र ससत खालतिवादी ी भली भूभूमम ममि में प्रवतवाितिवादीगण दािा डिालिषे गए पत्थि, ब किया जितिवादी व इट को देश सयीगण सं किषे खर मय खरखर्चे किषे ा हटायिषे तित तथा उक्त ी भली भूभूमम पि कोई अवतकमण निा हक्रमण नहीं कििषे। प्रवतवाितिवादीगण गण सीगण सं संखा 5 व 6 किषे ववरुद्ध पत्तिषे किक्री ा हि तक िाििगण सतिवादी खारि किया ज वकया किया जाता ा हता है वकन्तु या ह वतिवादी व नििखर्चेश दिया किया जाता ा हता है किक्री पटटिषे या व निमदण किक्री अ नितुमवत ििषे नििषे गण सिषे पली भूव्व ी भली भूभूमम किक्री र ससत किषे गण सम्बन्ध ममि में िो नि में दोनों पदक्षि में दोनों किषे गण सतुखाधधकाि किषे गण सम्बन्ध ममि में ववर मय खराि कि नििषे किषे उपिाीगण संत ा हतिवादी पटटा व अ नितुमवत किया जाितिवादी कििषे।

द डिकिक्री पिर मय खरा व नियम नितुगण साि मतुतुर्तीब वकया किया जाए। "

2. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the record.

3. It appears from the record that appellant-plaintiff instituted a

civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction claiming that

adjoining to his plot a disputed plot is situated and in disputed

plot, windows and ventilation of plaintiff are opening. Defendant

Nos.1 to 4 have raised some encroachment by putting stones and

raw construction material and wants to encroach thereupon.

Therefore, private respondent-defendants be restrained not to

made any encroachment over the subject plot and the stones, raw

building material lying in subject plot be removed. Plaintiff also

prayed that private respondent-defendants are inclined to get

issued patta of the subject plot from Municipal Corporation, Kehtri.

Hence, Municipal Corporation, Khetri be restrained not to issue

(3 of 4) [CSA-145/2022]

any patta. Both Courts on appreciation of pleadings and evidence

have held that plot in question is an open plot on which appellant-

plaintiff's windows and ventilation are open. The impugned decree

has already been passed in favour of appellant-plaintiff, with

direction against private respondent-defendants in mandatory

form as well to remove the raw construction material and other

things laying on the plot.

4. As far as, the claim of plaintiff to get injunction against

Municipal Corporation, Khetri has been declined, this Court finds

that no such injunction can be passed on askings and anticipation

that Government would issue a patta. Such nature of injunction is

barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Thus,

Appellate Court is well within its jurisdiction and parameters of law

to decline two injunctions qua the Municipal Corporation, Khetri.

However, the injunction in permanent and mandatory form has

already been passed in favour of appellant-plaintiff and against

private respondent-defendants. Hence, this Court finds that no

substantial question of law in that backdrop of facts arise in this

second appeal and no interference is required to be made out in

the fact findings recorded by the Court below.

5. The findings recorded by two Courts below are findings of

fact and do not give rise to formulation of any substantial question

of law. In absence of involvement of any substantial question of

law, the second appeal cannot be entertained for exercising

jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The substantial questions of

law as proposed by appellant-plaintiff are essentially questions of

fact, which requires reappreciation of evidence. Reappreciation of

evidence is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 of

(4 of 4) [CSA-145/2022]

CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in

findings. None of the question of law, falls within purview of

substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of

Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial

question of law is sine qua non. Otherwise also, it is a case of

concurrent findings of facts, which even if erroneous, cannot be

disturbed in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC as has

been held in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai

Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] and catena of other

judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma

Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs.

Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs.

Ameerchand, [(1981) 2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs.

Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC 434], State of Madhya Pradesh

Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595] and

C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy and

Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 659]. Since no substantial questions of law

are involved in present appeal thus, same is not liable to be

entertained.

6. Accordingly, the second appeal is found to be devoid of

merits and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to

costs.

7. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,

also stand disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN /26

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)