Rewadmal S/O Sonaram @ ... vs Onkar S/O Chandraya
2022 Latest Caselaw 7145 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7145 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 10 November, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Rewadmal S/O Sonaram @ ... vs Onkar S/O Chandraya on 10 November, 2022

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 153/2019
Rewadmal S/o Sonarayan @ SheoNarayan, Aged About 63 Years,
Resident Of Gram Samel Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa
                                                          ----Appellant/Plaintiff
                                   Versus
1.      Onkar S/o Chandraya, Resident Of Gram Samel Tehsil
        Lalsot District Dausa
                                  ------Respondent/Defendant

2. Mool Chand S/o Sonarayan @ SheoNarayan

3. Basantilal S/o Sonarayan @ SheoNarayan,

4. Sitaram S/o Bherulal, All Resident Of Gram Samel Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa

----Proforma Plaintiffs

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment 10/11/2022

1. The instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure (CPC) has been preferred by one of the plaintiffs,

assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2019 passed in

Civil Regular Appeal No.04/2017 by the Court of Additional District

Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.), dismissing the appeal and

affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2017 passed in

Civil Suit No.10/2014 by the Court of Civil Judge, Lalsot, District

Dausa (Raj.), whereby and whereunder civil suit for permanent

injunction, filed by plaintiffs has been dismissed on merits.

2. Having heard counsel for appellant and on perusal of

impugned judgments, it appears that plaintiffs claimed ownership

and possession in respect of suit property but both courts below,

after appreciation of evidence have recorded a fact finding that

(2 of 3) [CSA-153/2019]

plaintiffs miserably failed to produce their ownership and

possession. In absence of possession of plaintiffs, their suit for

permanent injunction has been dismissed on merits.

3. Counsel for appellant could not point out any perversity on

the part of courts below in recording findings which are based on

appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. In absence of perversity,

or when findings are neither based on surmises and conjunctures,

the same do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. The

substantial question of law are sine-qua-non to exercise the

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of CPC.

4. In case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari

[(2001) 3 SCC 179] the Supreme Court Court held as under:-

"A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be "substantial", a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicios balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis."

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan

v. Shiv Dayal [(2019) 8 SCC 637], has held that a concurrent

finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was

recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or

(3 of 3) [CSA-153/2019]

based on misreading of the material on records and documents.

The Court held as under:

"When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose,J. as his Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.,[AIR 1943 Nag 117 para 43]"

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case C. Doddanarayan

Reddy vs. C. Jayarama Reddy [(2020) 4 SCC 659], has

observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is

not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is

recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that

any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have

reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere

with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under

Section 100 CPC.

7. As a result, the second appeal is bereft of merits being no

involvement of any substantial question of law and accordingly,

the same is hereby dismissed.