Rajasthan High Court
Naveen Chand Chaturvedi ... vs Prithviraj S/O Lalaram on 13 October, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 75/2021
1. Naveen Chand Chaturvedi (Deceased)
1/1 Smt. Rajani Chaturvedi W/o Late Shri Naveen Chand
1/2 Tonesh Chaturvedi S/o Late Shri Naveen Chand
1/3 Jule Chaturvedi D/o Late Shri Naveen Chand All R/o
Purohit Mohalla, Bharatpur
2. Rajendra Prasad Chaturvedi
3. Anil Kumar Chaturvedi
4. Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi
All Sons Of Late Balgovind Chaturvedi, R/o Purohit
Mohalla, Bharatpur
5. Smt. Bina Chaturvedi W/o Shri Mahesh Chand Chaturvedi
D/o Late Shri Balgovind Chaturvedi, R/o Lucknow (UP)
6. Smt. Mukul Chaturvedi W/o Shri Mahar Chaturvedi D/o
Late Shri Balgovind Chaturvedi, R/o Bhopal (MP)
8. Kedarnath
9. Vedprakash
10. Kailash
11. Chandraprakash
All Sons Of Shri Prabhudayal Munim Vaishya, R/o Dahi
Wali Gali, Behind Jain Mandir, Bharatpur.
----Appellants-Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Prithviraj S/o Lalaram, R/o Purohit Mohalla, Bharatpur
(Deceased)
1/1 Smt. Longshree W/o Late Shri Prithviraj
1/2 Chandrashekhar S/o Late Shri Prithviraj
1/3 Gauri Sharma D/o Late Shri Prithviraj
All R/o Purohit Mohalla, Near Jain Mandir, Bharatpur
1/4 Gudiya Sharma D/o Late Shri Prithviraj W/o Shri Sushil
Sharma, R/o Murena (Mp)
2. Prakash
3. Rambabu
Both Son Of Shri Lalaram, R/o Purohit Mohalla, Bharatpur.
(Downloaded on 18/10/2022 at 12:05:42 AM)
(2 of 5) [CSA-75/2021]
4. Smt. Kailadevi @ Rajendra Kaur W/o Late Shri
Premlochan, R/o Purohit Mohalla, Bharatpur.
5. Nagar Nigam Bharatpur Through Chief Executive Officer,
Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur.
----Respondents-Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
13/10/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiffs (hereafter referred to 'plaintiffs') have
preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the
judgment and decree dated 21.01.2021 passed in civil appeal No.
23/2019 (CIS No.970/2014) by the Additional District Judge,
No.4, Bharatpur, dismissing the appeal filed by appellants and
affirming the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2014 passed in civil
suit No.31/2006 (25/2013) by the Additional Senior Civil Judge,
No.3, Bharatpur whereby and whereunder plaintiffs' civil suit for
permanent injunction has been decreed.
2. Heard counsel for appellants and on perusal of the record, it
appears that plaintiffs, claiming themselves as tenants of
respondent-defendants (hereafter referred to 'defendants') sought
an injunction to the effect that defendants No.1 to 4 be restrained
not to obstruct in raising a pkka road on the public way shown by
red colour in the map appended with the plaint by the Nagar
Nigam, as also not to obstruct in ingress/egress of the common
way.
(3 of 5) [CSA-75/2021]
3. Both courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have
recorded a fact finding that the way in question is not a
public/common way but it is a personal way available to plaintiffs
and defendants to their houses. Both courts below have placed
reliance on the previous judgments (Ex.A-1) and (Exhibit-A9)
wherein also, the way in question was not found as a public or
common way.
As far as, grievances of appellants for not obstructing in the
way to their tenanted portion is concerned, both courts below
have observed that plaintiff (PW-1) himself has admitted that
defendants have not obstructed in the way to the tenanted
portion. That apart, defendants in their evidence have not
disputed the right of way of plaintiff-tenants through the way in
question therefore, the grievances raised by appellant-plaintiffs, in
their capacity of tenant by way of present civil suit do not
arise/survive at all and accordingly, courts below have rightly
dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
4. The counsel for appellants 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 only
perversity, or when findings are neither based on surmises and
conjunctures nor 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 high court under Section 100 of CPC.
5. In case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi [(2016)3 SCC
78], the Apex Court held that even if finding of fact is wrong,
that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong
(4 of 5) [CSA-75/2021]
finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it
should be based only on conjectures and surmises. The safest
approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable
man's inference on facts.
6. In case of State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal [(2019)8
SCC 637], the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 Hon'ble Court held as under:-
"16. 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 de hors 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
Nagpur 117 Para 43)."
7. In the case of C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.
Jayarama Reddy and ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659], wherein 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.
(5 of 5) [CSA-75/2021]
8. In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by both 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. No Costs
9. Stay application and any other pending application, if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
10. Decree be prepared accordingly.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/15
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
