Dhula Through Lrs And Others vs Ramprasad And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2718 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.163/2017

1.       Dhula S/o Shri Sheoram, (since deceased)
1/1.     Ratan S/o Dhula,
1/2.     Amba Lal S/o Dhula,
1/3.     Narbada D/o Dhula,
1/4.     Sohan W/o Dhula
         All   R/o   Kalanada,       Tehsil     Todaraisingh       District   Tonk,
         Rajasthan.
2.       Ramnarayan S/o Shri Banna,
3.       Ladu S/o Shri Banna,
4.       Gopal S/o Shri Jagdish,
         Appellant No.2 to 4 all R/o Kalanada, Tehsil Todaraisingh
         District Tonk, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Appellants
                                     Versus
1.       Ramprasad S/o Shri Dhanna,
2.       Shoeraj S/o Shri Dhanna,
3.       Giriraj S/o Shri Dhanna,
         All   R/o   Kalanada,       Tehsil     Todaraisingh       District   Tonk,
         Rajasthan.
4.       Manbhar Widow Of Shri Dhanna, R/o Kalanada, Tehsil
         Todaraisingh District Tonk, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. D K Dixit
For Respondent(s)          :



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                  Judgment

31/03/2022

1. Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this second appeal assailing

the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2010 passed by Civil Judge

(J.D.) Todaraisingh, District, Tonk in Civil Suit No.7/2005 whereby

(2 of 3) [CSA-163/2017]

their civil suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed and

the same has been affirmed in first appeal No.3/2010 vide

judgment dated 06.12.2016 passed by Additional District Judge,

Tonk.

2. Appellants-plaintiffs have filed a simplicitor suit for

permanent injunction, alleging their possession over the bada in

question and claimed injunction against respondents not to

dispossess them from their bada. In the plaint, plaintiffs have not

disclosed any khasra wherein their bada in question are located.

The reference to the khasra No.205/2210 and 205/2211 at village

Kalanada is in context to defendants version that their bada are

situated in these lands.

3. Defendants appeared and submitted written statement that

their bada is situated in lands of khasra No.205/2210 and

205/2211 at village Kalanada and both these lands belong to

them. Defendants clarified that the bada for which plaintiffs are

claiming their right is situated in the pasture land of khasra

No.1282 and land of gair mumkin pal of Khasra No.204 which is a

land of a common way. Plaintiffs want to enter upon the bada of

defendants.

4. On rival pleadings of both parties, learned trial court settled

the issues and recorded evidence. The Court Commissioner was

also appointed to inspect the sight. The trial court found that the

plaintiffs have not disclosed any land where their badas are

situated. The report of Court Commissioner was also taken into

consideration. The Court Commissioner also could not found the

badas of plaintiffs in the land of Khasra No.205/2210 and

205/2211 rather the bada in these lands were found to be of

defendants. There was no other evidence either oral or

(3 of 3) [CSA-163/2017]

documentary from the side of plaintiffs to show the existence of

their badas on their land of khatedari. Since plaintiffs could not

prove the possession over the badas and their badas were not

found on their khatedari land, the trial court dismissed their suit

for permanent injunction. On filing the first appeal, the appellate

court affirmed the findings on re-appreciation of pleadings and

evidence. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts

below are based on the pleadings and evidence available on

record.

5. Learned counsel for appellants made a persuasive attempt

to show that findings recorded by two courts below are perverse

however, this Court finds that findings are duly based on evidence

and cannot be held to be perverse in any manner. Plaintiffs cannot

succeed in a suit for permanent injunction moreover, when they

could not prove their possession and existence of the badas in

khatedari land.

6. In that view of matter, no substantial question of law arises

in the present second appeal and accordingly the same is liable to

be dismissed and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/3

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)