Rajasthan High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Mohan Chand on 14 November, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 133/2017
Rajesh Kumar S/o Vishambhar Dayal, R/o Bayana, Tehsil-
Bayana, District Bharatpur Raj.
----Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
Mohan Chand S/o Patiram, R/o Subhash Chauk, Bayana, Tehsil-
Bayana, District Bharatpur Raj.
----Respondent/Defendant
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
14/11/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment
and decree dated 19.11.2016 passed in Civil Regular Appeal
No.06/2007 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1,
Bayana, District Bharatpur, affirming the judgment and decree
dated 01.02.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.53/1998 by the Court of
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bayana, District Bharatpur, whereby
and whereunder his civil suit for permanent injunction has been
dismissed on merits.
2. Having heard counsel for appellant and on perusal of record,
it transpires that both courts below have concurrently recorded a
fact finding that plaintiff himself has admitted that his house is
constructed over an area of 276 Sq. yards. Admittedly, plaintiff
purchased land out of Khasra No.1268 situated at Town Bayana,
(2 of 3) [CSA-133/2017]
vide two sale deeds dated 20.07.1988 and 03.04.1989 and total
measurement of both sale deeds is 276 Sq. yards. Both courts
have held that plaintiff could not prove any vacant land of his own,
on which he is claiming permanent injunction against defendant.
With such fact finding, where plaintiff remained miserably failed to
identify the disputed land as well as could not show his ownership
and possession, two courts below have declined to grant decree
for permanent injunction.
3. Counsel for appellant has argued that defendant claimed that
the disputed land is part of Khasra No.1251 and which is in
possession of defendant, for which issue No.12 was specifically
framed, but this issue has been held against the defendant,
therefore, defendant also could not prove his right and possession
over the disputed land.
4. This Court is of opinion that plaintiff has to prove his own
case by his own evidence and once he could not show that
disputed land of his own ownership and possession nor could lead
evidence to identify the disputed land, rather the land purchased
by plaintiff through registered sale deeds dated 20.07.1988 and
03.04.1989 are admittedly in his possession and other than
disputed land, therefore, plaintiff cannot take any benefit of
deciding issue No.12 against defendant.
5. It is a trite law that concurrent fact findings which are based
on evidence and do not suffer from perversity or misreading/non-
reading of evidence, are not required to be interfered with by the
High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
The findings of fact are neither can be said to be dehors to the
pleadings of plaint nor are based on surmises and conjectures nor
(3 of 3) [CSA-133/2017]
are against the settled proposition of law, therefore, do not give
rise to any substantial question of law.
6. In case of C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.
Jayarama Reddy and ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court 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. In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts
below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned
judgments, there is no force in the second appeal as no
substantial question of law arises in the matter, hence the same is
hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
8. Stay application and any other pending application, if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
9. Record of courts below be sent back.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/85
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
