Rajasthan High Court
Vishesh Korwani vs Rajendra Kumar Sharma And Another on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 34/2016
माननीय राजस्ान उचच्च नयायालय, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर ।
एकल पीठ सिसिल स्वितीय अपील ि संखया: 34/16
1. सिशेष कोरिानी पुत्र शी तोलाराम कोरिानी, आयु 39 िष्, सनिािी- पलाट नमम्बर 3,
गुरूनानक नगर, ब्रहमपुरी, जयपुर ।
..अपीला््थी / िादी
म्बनाम
1. राजेन्द्र कुमार शमा् पुत्र शी कश्री कलयाण जी ज्याण जी जौशी, सनिािी कश्री कलयाण पॉिती िदन, राधा
गोसिनद नसि्ग हॉम के पाि, ब्रहमपुरी, जयपुर ।
..रे सपोडेनट / प्रसतिादी क्रम-1
2. प्रकाश गोलानी पुत्र शी भगिान दाि गोलानी, सनिािी मकान नमम्बर 108, क संिर नगर,
च्चा संदी की टकिाल, जयपुर ।
..रे सपोडेनटगण / प्रसतिादी ि संखया 2
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devi Dutt Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
10/05/2022
1. By way of this second appeal, appellant has invoked the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to assail the fact findings of the judgment and decree
dated 29.09.2015 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.35/2010 by
the Court of Additonal District Judge No.5, Jaiput Metropolitan,
Jaipur affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2010
passed in Civil Suit No.451/2002 (212/1998) in case of Prakash
(2 of 5) [CSA-34/2016]
Golani & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Sharma by the Court of
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan,
Jaipur whereby and whereunder the civil suit for possession and
permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. From the record, it appears that the Civil Suit No.451/2002
(212/1998) was instituted by one Mr. Prakash Golani against Mr.
Rajendra Kumar Sharma in relation to the Plot No.4 alloted by the
Madhav Nagar Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti, Jaipur. Later on, this
plot was purchased by appellant-Vishesh Korwani, who impleaded
as plaintiff No.2 in the aforesaid suit. The claim of the plaintiff is
that when they measured the area of their plot it was noticed that
towards the North side an area of 9X30 feet is less. It was alleged
that this area has been taken by the respondent-defendant-
Rajendra Kumar Sharma and he has raised contruction of
boundary wall to include this area in his plot No.10. A prayer was
made that the construction of boundary wall be ordered to be
demolished and decree for possession of an area of 9X30 feet be
passed in favour of plaintiff.
3. In the aforementioned facts, it is clear that in the present
second appeal, the dispute is between two neighbours in relation
to the land measuring 9X30 feet. Undisputedly, this land is in
possession of the respondent-defendant-Rajendra Kumar Sharma.
4. It appears from the record, that respondent-Rajendra Kumar
Sharma has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to have
a right of opening gate and in counter to that, the present suit for
possession was instituted.
5. Both suits were consolidated and tried together and have
been decided in common judgment dated 04.10.2010 by the trial
court.
(3 of 5) [CSA-34/2016]
Before the trial court, both parties have adduced their oral
and documentary evidence. It has been concluded on appriciation
of evidence that appellant purchased the plot No.4 with an area of
190 sq. yards. As per the report of the Court Commissioner,
appellant was found in possession of his purchased area.
Accordingly, the trial court as well as the first appellate court,
recorded findings of fact that appellant has failed to prove his
ownerhsip over the disputed area of 9X30 feet, as such the civil
suit for possession was dismissed.
6. Though it is also clear from the record that the civil suit, for
permanent injunction filed by respondent-Rajendra Kumar Sharma
,too was dismissed and his claim was also declined, however, he
has not challenged the dismissal of his suit before this Court.
Hence, this Court is not examining the claim of respondent No.1.
7. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that in relation to
the area of 9X30 feet, the title neither vests in plaintiff nor in
defendant and such issue could not have been decided in the
present suit.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that in
view of the concurrent findings of fact, no interference is called for
in the impugned judgments by the High Court while exercising the
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
9. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the
impugned judgments and record.
10. The present second appeal arises out of the Civil Suit
No.451/2002 (212/1998) instituted for the purpose of claiming
possession, demolition of construction and permanent injunction
in which plaintiff prayed following prayer:-
(4 of 5) [CSA-34/2016]
अनुतोष:- वाद वादी के ववरुद्ध वनिमन प्रकार वरकार डिर डिकार डिक्री फ़र्री फ़रमाी फ़रमाया रमाया जाकर आदेश
पाररत की फ़रमाया रमाया जावे कार डिक्री:-
अ. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री रमाया जो वादीगण के भख
ू ंरकार डि कार डिक्री ओर उत्तर तरफ प्रवतवादी ी दारा 9X30
फ़ार डिक्रीट भवू ्री फ़रम रमाया जो वाद पत्र के साथ सलगन ननक़शे ्री फ़रमश आरकार डिी डी धाररी फ़रमायधारियों से दशास ी फ़रमाये गी फ़रमायी हे,
का कबज़ा वादीगण को वासतववक रूप से प्रवतवादी से वदलाी फ़रमाया रमाया जाी फ़रमाय।
ब. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री प्रवतवादी के ववरुद्ध इस आशी फ़रमाय कार डिक्री व की चिरसथाी फ़रमायी वनषेनिषेदाषेद्याजा कार डिक्री
वरकार डिर डिकार डिक्री प्रदान कार डिक्री रमाया जावे कार डिक्री प्रवतवादी वाद पत्र के साथ सलगन ननक़शे से लाल रंग
से दशास ी फ़रमायी गी फ़रमायी भवू ्री फ़रम पर वकसी प्रकार का वन्री फ़रमासण काी फ़रमायस न करे ऐसा प्रवतवादी
सवी फ़रमायं अथवा अपने एरमाया जशट, सवर्वेंट, प्रवतवनवडी ध ी फ़रमाया अा अनी फ़रमाय न्य वी फ़रमायव्य व्यक्ति से न कराी फ़रमाये
स. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री वादीगण प्रवतवादी को इस अ्री फ़रमर कार डिक्री सथाी फ़रमायी वनषेनिषेदाषेद्याजा से पाबंद
ू ंरकार डि संंखी फ़रमाया ४ के
करने का अवडी धकार हे कार डिक्री प्रवतववडी ध वावडी धघान ी दारा भख
वववादगसत 9X30 फ़ार डिक्रीट उत्तर वदशा को छोड़ कर शेष ५७ फ़ार डिक्रीट ३० फ़ार डिक्रीट वहससे ्री फ़रमश
कराी फ़रमाये रमाया जाने वाले वन्री फ़रमासण काी फ़रमायस ्री फ़रमश कोई बाडी धा करीत नह नहीं करे , न ही तोड़फोड़
ू ंरकार डि के उपी फ़रमायोग उपभोग से वावडी धघान को वंव की चित करे , न ही वबना
करे न ही भख
ू ंरकार डि संंखी फ़रमाया ४ ्री फ़रमश प्रवेश करे , ऐसा कतत्ी फ़रमाय प्रवतवादी ना
अनु्री फ़रमवत वावडी धगण उ्य व्यक्ति भख
तो सवी फ़रमायं करे न ही अपने व्री फ़रमत्र, एरमाया जशट, सवी फ़रमायं कारीगर ी फ़रमाया ्री फ़रमरमाया जदूर से कराी फ़रमाये।
द. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री ख की चिास ्री फ़रमुकद्री फ़रमा वदलाी फ़रमाया रमाया जाी फ़रमाये।
ी फ़रमाय. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री अा अनी फ़रमाय कोई अनुतोष रमाया जो वादीगण के हक़ ्री फ़रमम उव की चित हो, प्रदान
वकी फ़रमाया रमाया जावे।
11. On perusal of the plaint, it is clear that appellant-plaintiff
claimed possession assailing his ownership and title over the area
in question and once the plaintiff could not adduce sufficient
evidence to prove his ownership, the suit has been dismissed.
12. The fact findings of two courts below are in relation to
examine ownership of the plaintiffs over the area in question.
Hence, the issue, raised by counsel for appellant at the stage of
this second appeal, is not the subject matter of the suit itself. A
new question of fact, which does not arise out of the pleadings of
parties, may not be entertained at the stage of second appeal.
(5 of 5) [CSA-34/2016]
13. On perusal of both judgments, it stands clear that both
courts have appreciated/re-appreciated the evidence of both
parties and there after have passed the findings of fact.
14. 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 categorically observed
that re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court within scope of
Section 100 CPC to draw a different conclusion other than taken
by the two Courts below is not permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has also observed that inadequacy of evidence or different
reading of evidence is not a perversity nor any wrong findings of
fact by itself constitutes a question of law.
15. As discussion made hereinabove on factual and legal aspect,
this Court finds that the present appeal does not involve any
question of law much less substantial question of law. In absence
of substantial question of law, this second appeal is not liable to
be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed.
16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
17. Record of both the Courts below be sent back forthwith.
18. There is no order as to costs.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
