Rajasthan High Court
Ram Narayan And Another vs Gram Panchyat Chithwadi And ... on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 166/2016
1. Ram Narayan S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Dagar aged about 70 years,
R/o Bans ki Dhani, Village Chitwadi, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. Ramchandra S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Dagar, aged about 64 years,
R/o Bans ki Dhani, Village Chitwadi, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Plaintiffs-Appellants
Versus
1. Gram Panchayat, Chithwadi, Panchayat Samiti Govindgardh,
Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur through its Administrator Sarpanch,
Gram Panchayat Chithwadi, Distt. Jaipur
2. Government Senior Updhyaya Sanskrit School, Chithwadi
through its Principal, Government Senior Updhyaya Sanskrit
School, Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur
3. Government Primary Sanskrit School Chithwadi through its
Head Master, Government Primary Sanskrit School Chitwadi,
Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
4. State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Jaipur, Distt.
Jaipur.
5. Moti Ram S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Dagar, R/o Bans ki Dhani, Village
Chitwadi, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta with
Mr. Vikram Jonwal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
02/05/2022
1. Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this second appeal invoking
jurisdiction of High Court under Section 100 CPC, assailing
judgment and decree dated 05.01.2016 passed by Additional
District Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur in Civil First Appeal
(2 of 4) [CSA-166/2016]
No.17/2010, affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010
passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chomu in Civil Suit
No.197/1993 whereby and whereunder civil suit for mandatory
and permanent injunction filed by plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. It appears from record that appellants-plaintiffs came out
with a case that plot in question is in their actual and physical
possession since time of their predecessor and on the strength of
possession, sought declaration as well as permanent injunction
seeking entitlement of allotment of plot from Gram Panchayat. In
counter, respondents denied possession of plaintiffs and alleged
that land in question is being used for the playground of
Government school with the consent of Gram Panchayat. Plaintiffs'
right to claim allotment of land in question, was categorically
denied.
3. Having considered the rival pleadings and respective
evidence of both parties, the trial Court found that plaintiffs could
not adduce sufficient evidence to prove their possession over the
land in question since time of their predecessors. Accordingly, the
suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.07.2010. Plaintiffs
filed first appeal but the first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
evidence affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the
appeal vide judgment dated 05.01.2016. Hence, against
concurrent findings of fact, this second appeal has been filed.
4. This Court after hearing counsel for appellants-plaintiffs and
on perusal of impugned judgment finds that the plaintiffs
instituted present suit on the strength of their possession.
Plaintiffs remained failed to prove their possession and both
Courts below on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence have
concluded that plaintiffs are not in possession of the land in
(3 of 4) [CSA-166/2016]
question, rather it was found that land in question is being used as
playground for the Government school with the consent and
permission of Gram Panchayat. Such fact finding do not suffer
from any perversity. By umpteen number of judgments, judicial
precendence has been established that findings of fact are not
required to be interfered with by the High Court under Section 100
CPC unless and until the same are not found to be perverse.
5. Since findings of fact are based on evidence and do not
suffer from misreading/ non-reading of evidence, the same do not
give rise to any substantial question of law. In absence of
substantial question of law the second appeal cannot be
entertained. The substantial questions of law as proposed by
appellants-plaintiffs are essentially questions of fact which
requires reappreciation of evidence. Reappreciation of evidence is
not permissible within scope of Section 100 of CPC, unless and
until there is some illegality or perversity in findings of impugned
judgments. 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 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] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal
(4 of 4) [CSA-166/2016]
Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595]. 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 without force
and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
7. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
