Virendra Mohan S/O Late Shri ... vs Dwarika Prasad S/O Shri Kanhaiya ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3781 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 297/2019

Virendra Mohan S/o Late Shri Ghanshyamdas
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Dwarika Prasad S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Jyoti Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohan Agarwal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/05/2022

1. Counsel for appellants-plaintiffs submits that their civil suit

for declaration and possession was decreed by the trial Court vide

judgment dated 12.08.2013 partially.

2. Both parties filed first appeal and the first Appellate Court

has dismissed plaintiffs' appeal but has allowed defendants' appeal

and set aside the decree of the trial Court.

3. Counsel for respondents submits that the trial Court has not

committed any illegality and jurisdictional error in dismissing the

plaintiffs' suit.

4. Having heard counsel for both parties, this Court finds that

matter requires consideration, hence, appeal is admitted for

hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the learned first Appellate Court has illegally reversed the findings on the issue No.1 regarding open roof except two rooms constructed by the defendants without being come close quarters to the findings reached by the learned trial Court by misconstruing the documents Exhibit 2, 4, 6, 8 & 9?

(2 of 2) [CSA-297/2019]

(ii) whether the plaintiffs have purchased the shop including the roof top vide registered sale deeds making mention of the fact of purchase of roof top would dis-entitled the plaintiffs, prove ownership of the roof top merely there were existing two rooms over the said roof which were not found mentioned in the registered sale deeds?

(iii) Whether the findings on the issue No.4 relating to the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession based on the title was barred by limitation under Article 65 of limitation Act without being pleaded and proved by the defendants have acquired adverse possession for more than 12 years over the said rooms?"

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,

that two rooms in question situated at roof are in possession of

respondents and appellants are in use and occupation of the

remaining part of open roof situated on his shop, this Court deems

it just and proper to direct that both parties shall maintain status

quo in relation to property in question as to alienation and

possession as it exists today.

6. With aforesaid directions, the stay application stands

disposed of.

7. List this appeal along with Civil Second Appeal No.296/2019.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN /7

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)