Rajasthan High Court
Madanlal S/O Shri Bhagirath vs Ramu S/O Shri Gulla Jat on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.472/2019
Madanlal S/o Shri Bhagirath, Resident Of Jobner Tehsil Phulera,
District Jaipur
----Appellant-Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ramu S/o Shri Gulla Jat, Resident Of Nayabas Tehsil
Phulera District Jaipur Deceased Through Legal Heirs:-
1/1-Smt. Geeta W/o Late Shri Ramu
1/2-Santosh Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramu,
Both resident of Nayabas Tehsil Phulera District Jaipur, at
present resident of Bigod Via Badwad District Indore
(Mp).
2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Phulera, Hq Sambharlake, District Jaipur.
3. Surendra Singh S/o Shri Durgaprasad Yadav, Resident Of
Balalbhgram Tehsil Kishangarhbas District Alwar.
----Respondents-Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhruv Atri
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
31/10/2022
1. The instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been
filed by appellant-plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his
civil suit for specific performance of an agreement dated
31.12.1985, vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.2006 passed
in Civil Suit No.155/1998 (167/2003) by the Court of Civil Judge
(Sr. Division) Sambharlake, District Jaipur which has been
affirmed in first appeal No.28/2006 by the Court of Additional
(2 of 4) [CSA-472/2019]
District Judge No.1, Sambharlake District Jaipur vide judgment
dated 28.08.2019.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant.
3. It appears that both courts below have concurrently held
that appellant-plaintiff could not prove execution of agreement
dated 31.12.1985 (Ex.1). The appellant-plaintiff claimed to
purchase land of 8 biswa of Khasra No.547, measuring total 21
bigha 10 biswa, against sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- and to
obtain possession of the same. It is admitted case of plaintiff that
vide sale deed dated 18.09.1998 (Ex.2), land of 8 bigha 6 biswa
out of Khasra No.547 has been sold to defendant No.3. Plaintiff
came out with a case that defendant No.3, on the basis of his
registered sale deed dated 18.09.1998, wants to dispossess the
plaintiff from his purchased land of 8 biswa and therefore, he
instituted the present civil suit.
3.1 In evidence, plaintiff could not produce cogent evidence to
prove that he paid Rs.2,000/- and agreement dated 31.12.1985
was executed and further possession over 8 biswa land was
delivered to him. That apart, the plaintiff has not given any
explanation for maintaining silence for as many as long 13 years
after execution of agreement dated 31.12.1985. It has been come
on record that PW-2 and PW-3, who are witnesses of plaintiff,
themselves admit that defendant No.3 has erected his iron wire
fencing over the disputed land it means admits the possession of
defendant No.3 therefore, on the basis of such evidence, plaintiff's
suit for specific performance and permanent injunction has been
dismissed which has been affirmed in first appeal.
4. Both courts below, on appreciation/re-appreciation of
evidence on record have concurrently recorded the fact finding in
(3 of 4) [CSA-472/2019]
respect of issue Nos.1 and 2 which do not suffer from any
perversity nor are based on no evidence or suffer from
misreading/non-reading of evidence. The counsel for appellant
also could not point out any perversity so as to require
interference in both impugned judgments dated 02.09.2006 and
28.08.2019.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramathal Vs.
Maruthathal and Ors. [(2018)18 SCC 303] while dealing with
the scope of Section 100 CPC to interfere in fact findings of two
courts below in respect of decreeing a suit for specific
performance observed as under:-
"When the intention of the legislature is so clear the courts
have no power to enlarge the scope of Section 100 for
whatsoever reasons. Justice has to be administered in
accordance with law. In the case on hand the High Court
has exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the well
considered judgment of the courts below which is based on
cogent reasoning. The learned judge ought not to have
entered the arena of re appreciation of the evidence, hence
the whole exercise done by the High Court is beyond the
scope and jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 of CPC."
6. 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:
"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
(4 of 4) [CSA-472/2019]
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]"
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
