Rajasthan High Court
Madan Lal Through Lrs vs Ram Swaroop on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 170/2014
1. Madan Lal S/o Shri Jahan Lal, R/o Piprau, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Deceased)
1/1. Deendayal S/o Late Shri Madan Lal, R/o Piprau, Tehsil
Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
1/2. Satish S/o Late Shri Madan Lal, R/o Piprau, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
1/3. Sunil Kumar S/o Late Shri Madan Lal, R/o Piprau, Tehsil
Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
1/4. Sunita D/o Late Shri Madan Lal, R/o Piprau, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Appellants-defendants
Versus
Ram Swaroop S/o Shri Parsadi, R/o Piprau, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Respondent-plaintiff
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
02/05/2022
1. This instant appeal has been filed by appellants-defendants
invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Section 100 CPC,
assailing judgment and decree dated 16.01.2014 passed by
Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur in appeal No.164/2004,
affirming the judgment and decree for permanent injunction dated
28.10.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nadbai in Civil
Suit No.181/2003 in the following manner:-
"वाद वादी ववरुद्ध प्रव प्रतिवादी दी बादी ब प्रति बत सा स्थायी व्थायी नियी निषायी निषे निषेधािषेधाजा धाज्ञा सीज्ञा स्वीकार वज्ञा स्वीक स्थाया
जााज्ञा स्वीकर प्रव प्रतिवादी ज्ञा स्वीकको वरर स्थायायी निषे स प्रतिा स्थायी व्थायी नियी निषायी निषे निषेधािषेधाजा पादी बपाबं निषेध वज्ञा स्वीक स्थाया जाा प्रतिा हा है ज्ञा स्वीकै की व ह
(2 of 4) [CSA-170/2014]
वाद पत्र ज्ञा स्वीकै की मद सपाबंखा एज्ञा स्वीक मक में व वरं प्रति ित भणित भू भूखपाबंड दी बरपाबंग सरंग सु भूखग सुर्ख ्थायी नि्ख नका सायी निषे जादी बरदे जबरदसी
वादी ज्ञा स्वीकको दी बायी निषेद भूखल ्थायी नि हनहीं ज्ञा स्वीकरायी निषे, उस पर ज्ञा स्वीकब्ज़ा ्थायी नि हनहीं ज्ञा स्वीकरायी निषे, पाटौर र मक में वादी व उसज्ञा स्वीकायी निषे
पररवार ज्ञा स्वीकायी निषे उ पित भकोग व उ प स्थायकोग मक में दी बा निषेधा उत्पन्न ्थायी नि हनहीं ज्ञा स्वीकरायी निषे, पाटौर र ज्ञा स्वीकको ्थायी नि हनहीं प्रतिकोड़ेायी निषे
और वादी ज्ञा स्वीकको अ प्थायी निायी निषे ित भणित भू भूखपाबंड पर व्थायी निमां ज्ञा स्वीकर्थायी निायी निषे सायी निषे ्थायी नि हनहीं रकोज्ञा स्वीकायी निषे।
भूखरा पक्षज्ञा स्वीकारा्थायी नि अ प्थायी निा अ प्थायी निा व ह्थायी नि ज्ञा स्वीकरायी निषे। । डडडिकै की पररा व्थायी नि स्थायमा्थायी निरंग सुसार दी ब्थायी निा स्थाया
जाा स्थायायी निषे।"
2. Counsel for appellants, in his crisp and wise arguments tried
to persuade the Court that findings recorded by both the Courts
below while passing the decree for permanent injunction in favour
of respondent-plaintiff are perverse and defense taken by
appellants-defendants has not been considered. Counsel for
appellants argued that since land in question is agricultural in
nature, therefore, even if the patta had been issued by Gram
Panchayat in favour of respondent-plaintiff, same do not confer
any right, title and interest and possession of plaintiff cannot be
assumed on the plot in question on the basis of patta of Gram
Panchayat.
3. Having heard counsel for appellants and on perusal of
impugned judgments, this Court finds that plaintiff instituted a
simpliciter suit for permanent injunction alleging inter alia that
plot in question measuring 30X45 feet was allotted by the Gram
Panchayat on 24.11.1975 in favour of plaintiff and possession was
handed over. Plaintiff alleged that he has constructed boundary
wall, plant peepal trees, pator etc. and he has actual possession of
the plot in question being its owner.
4. It appears from record that appellants-defendants took a
defense that land in question is agricultural land and plot of
Khasra No.546/8, as such the patta issued by the Gram
(3 of 4) [CSA-170/2014]
Panchayat in favour of plaintiff is without jurisdiction and the same
do not confer any right to plaintiff.
5. The trial Court on appreciation of pleadings and evidence of
both parties has recorded a findings of fact that where plaintiff has
produced his patta, site map and other relevant documents to
show his title and possession over the suit plot, the evidence
produced by the defendants do not go to show that plot in
question is part of agricultural land. The documents produced by
defendants, Jamabandi Samwat 2050-53 (Exhibit- A1), Report of
Patwari (Exhibit-A2) were considered by the trial Court that these
documents do not show that in revenue record, the land in
question is recorded as agricultural land. The trial Court also
appreciated the report of Court Commissioner which fortify the
actual possession of plaintiff over the plot in question. On
appreciation of such evidence, the trial Court decreed the
repondent-plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction against
appellants-defendants vide judgment dated 28.10.2004.
6. Appellants-defendants assailed the judgment and decree
dated 28.10.2004, by way of first appeal. The first Appellate Court
re-heard the matter as a whole and on re-appreciation of
evidence, the first Appellate Court also concurred with the findings
that defense taken by the appellants-defendants has not proved.
The land in question is not found to be recorded in the revenue
record and the same been proved to be a Abadi land. In that view,
the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent-
plaintiff was found lawful and valid. Accordingly, the first appeal
was dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court in favour of respondent-plaintiff.
(4 of 4) [CSA-170/2014]
7. The findings in relation to possession of plaintiff supported
with issuance of patta by the Gram Panchayat in his favour, are
findings of fact which are duly based on appreciation/re-
appreciation of evidence. Once both the Courts have considered
the respective claim of both parties and have appreciated the
respective evidence, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 100 CPC is not required to re-appreciate the evidence to
draw a different conclusion then recorded by the two Courts
below.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal
Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595], has held that even the findings
of fact may be incorrect or wrong, the same are not required to be
interfered with by the High Court unless and until, same suffer from any
perversity or misreading/non-reading of evidence. In the present case,
this Court do not find any perversity in findings recorded by the Court
below. In view of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of
law arises in the present appeal, hence, same cannot be entertained.
8. Accordingly the second appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
hereby dismissed.
9. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN/1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
