Devkaran And Ors vs Gram Panchayat Prithvipura And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2495 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 697/2017

1.       Devkaran S/o Harsahay Meena., R/o Gram Prithvipura
         Sub Tehsil Malakheda, Tehsil And District Alwar Raj.
2.       Banwari S/o Harsahay Meena., R/o Gram Prithvipura Sub
         Tehsil Malakheda, Tehsil And District Alwar Raj.
3.       Rajendrs S/o Bhagchand Meena., R/o Gram Prithvipura
         Sub Tehsil Malakheda, Tehsil And District Alwar Raj.
4.       Smt. Lichhami D/o Harsaya W/o Ramhet, R/o Gram
         Chimrawali, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar Raj.
5.       Smt. Parbhati D/o Harsahay W/o Shri Narayan R/o Gram
         Malana, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar Raj.
6.       Smt. Kamla D/o Harsahai W/o Harikishan, R/o Gram
         Malana, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar Raj.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       Gram Panchayat Prithvipura Through Sarpanch Gram
         Panchayat, Prithvipura Tehsil And District Alwar Raj.
2.       State Of Raj. Through Collector, Alwar Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Bipin Gupta
For Respondent(s)         :



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                 Judgment

23/03/2022

The appellant-plaintiffs (hereinafter 'plaintiff') have filed this

second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated

25/4/2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alwar in Suit

No. 367/2003 whereby and whereunder in view of fact that

plaintiffs' are having possession over a part of disputed land ad-

measuring 13 aier in khasra no. 1237 in village Prithvipura,

District Alwar, the decree for permanent injunction has been

(2 of 3) [CSA-697/2017]

passed that plaintiffs shall not be disposed without following due

process of law. The judgment and decree has been affirmed vide

judgment dated 22.9.2017 passed by Additional District Judge

No.2, Alwar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 33/2012.

Counsel for plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs are owner of

the suit property, by virtue of long possession. The two courts

below have recorded a finding of fact that there is no document of

ownership in relation to land in question in favour of plaintiffs,

rather in revenue record (exhibit-1), plaintiffs' possession has

been recorded as trespasser. Before the courts below, plaintiffs

claimed their ownership over land in question alleging it to be a

part of his khatedari land of Khasra No. 505, but no cogent

evidence was produced on record, to substantiate such stand. The

trial court and first appellate court having acknowledged old

possession of plaintiffs, did not find any ownership rights of land in

question in favour of plaintiffs and therefore passed impugned

decree, protecting the possession of plaintiff by due process of

law.

In the opinion of this court, although the decree passed by

the trial court is not sustainable in view of the fact that document

(exhibit-1) produced by plaintiffs themselves, their possession was

noticed as trespasser. However, since there is no cross appeal by

defendants, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned

judgments and decree. The plaintiffs have unnecessarily filed this

second appeal and the second appeal is superfluous litigation by

misusing the process of law.

In that view of above, the second appeal stands dismissed.

(3 of 3) [CSA-697/2017]

However, since the second appeal is being disposed of at

admission stage, this court is refraining itself from imposing the

costs.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

ANIL SHARMA /6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)