Rajasthan High Court
Bhagwan S/O Lodya vs Mandir Murti Shri Brijnandanji ... on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 425/2018
Bhagwan S/o Lodya, R/o Sorti Bazar Sahar Sawaimadhopur
----Appellant-defendant
Versus
Mandir Murti Shri Brijnandanji Virajman Thakurji Sorti Bazar
Sawai Madhopur, Through Kamlesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shyam
Sunder Sharma R/o Sorti Bazar Sahar Sawaimadhopur
----Respondent-plaintiff
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
22/11/2022
1. Appellant-defendant has filed this second appeal under
Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 21.5.2018
passed in first appeal No. 72/2012 by the District Judge,
Sawaimadhopur, affirming the judgment and decree dated
24.7.2012 passed in suit No.26/2005 by the Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Sawaimadhopur whereby in respect of a dispute with
regard to opening two gates in the Bagichi of Temple, following
order has been passed:
"परिणामस्वरूप वाादवादी मी मंंदादि मर मूूरमू ि शवादीम शीर्मर्मअी मं अं बमअं बृजबृजनी मंादबृजन जवादी मी महािाज ाज कराज की औि
से पेि श उक्त वााद ूर वरुद्ध प्रूरम वाादवादीगण भग वबृजन वगवन वग़भगवन वग़ैिी मह ाज के वाके वासे वास्ते सास्ते स्थायवादी ूरबृजनस्थायी निषेथायी निषेधायी निषेधाजा
ए वी मं आादेि शात्माज क ूरबृजनस्थायी निषेथायी निषेधायी निषेधाजा आी मं आंशि शाज क रूप से स्ववादीाज काि ूराज कस्ते स्थाया जााज कि प्रूरम वाादवादीगण
ाज क जरिस्ते स्थाये वास्ते सास्ते स्थायवादी ूरबृजनस्थायी निषेथायी निषेधायी निषेधाजा पाअं बी मंथायी निषेध ूराज कस्ते स्थाया जामा ी महभगवन वग़ै ाज कराज की वे वााद पात्र ाज के साथ सी मंलग
बृजनज़िवादी बृजनका मशा में मााज क शीर्म ए. सवादी ादवादी वाि मशा में इ. एफ वास्ते साबृजन पि वाादवादी ाज कराज की औि से ूरबृजनाज कले
गए ादि वाजे ाज का उपस्ते स्थाय ग उपभ ग बृजनी महं ाज किे ए वी मं प्रूरम वाादवादीगण ाज क जरिस्ते स्थाये
आादेि शात्माज क वास्ते सास्ते स्थायवादी ूरबृजनस्थायी निषेथायी निषेधायी निषेधाजा से पाअं बी मंथायी निषेध ूराज कस्ते स्थाया जामा ी महभगवन वग़ै ाज कराज की प्रूरम वाादवादीगण उक्त
ादि वाजे ाज क स्वस्ते स्थायी मं ाज के ख खरे खर्चे पि ूरबृजनण शीर्मस्ते स्थाय ाज कराज की ूरमकी तिथथ ाज के एाज क माी मह ाज के भवादीमि अं बी मंाद ाज कि ले ।
मामले मशा में ख खरर्चा पक्षाज कािाबृजन र्मअपबृजना र्मअपबृजना वी महबृजन ाज किशा मेंगे। पि खरा ंदपरचा डिा डिकराज की ऐसवादी प्राज काि
म मुमुर्तीअं ब ी मह ।"
(2 of 3) [CSA-425/2018]
2. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the impugned
judgment and record.
3. Having heard counsel for appellant and from perusal of
record, both Courts have concurrently recorded fact finding that
defendant has not right to open the gate towards the Bagichi of
plaintiff-Temple. It has come in evidence that first gate was
opened by defendants in the year 1998 and thereafter, second
gate was opened on 14.2.2005, therefore, plaintiff-Temple
instituted the present suit that because of opening of these two
gates, the regular Sewa puja of the Temple has become adversely
affected and a nuisance has created. Defendant could not adduce
any evidence to show his right to have opening of two gates.
Defense taken by defendant that Bagichi of Temple is a public
chowk, has not been found proved. The fact finding recorded by
the trial Court and affirmed by first Appellate Court are based on
due appreciation of evidence produced by both parties.
4. Counsel for appellant is unable to show any perversity in the
fact finding nor fact findings appears to be suffer from misreading/
non-reading of evidence or are based on surmises and
conjectures, therefore, such fact findings do not give rise to any
substantial questions of law.
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
based on misreading of the material on records and documents.
The Court held as under:
(3 of 3) [CSA-425/2018]
"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.
8. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /14
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
