Mamraj vs Tikuram (2023/Rjjd/017240)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5342 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017240]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 86/2023

Mamraj S/o Kesaram, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

----Appellant Versus

1. Tikuram S/o Shri Shyokaran, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

2. Mahendra S/o Shri Shyokaran, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

3. Hanuman S/o Shri Mahendra, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

25/05/2023

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and decree dated 06.05.2023 passed by Additional District Judge

No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Appeal No.04/2020

whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2020 passed by

learned Civil Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Suit

No.97/2012 (CIS No.698/2014) dismissing the suit for declaration

and permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff, has been

affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned

Courts below erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff despite

the specific admission of defendant No.2 himself that the plaintiff

was in possession of the property. The Commissioner Report also

[2023/RJJD/017240] (2 of 2) [CSA-86/2023]

fortified the fact of his possession and therefore, the defendants

deserved to be restrained from interfering with his possession and

his right to the common way.

3. Heard.

4. A perusal of the judgments passed by the learned trial Court

as well as the first appellate Court makes it clear that the plaintiff

did not lead any documentary evidence regarding his possession

and therefore, the courts below decided against him.

5. Both the courts below reached to the specific conclusion that

the defendants as well as the plaintiff alleged each other to be the

encroacher but failed to substantiate their case by any

documentary evidence which could prove the possession of either

of them.

6. Further, the Courts specifically reached to the conclusion that

the land was of the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat

being not impleaded, no relief qua the land claimed to be the land

of common way, could be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

7. The findings as arrived by the Courts being totally in

consonance with the material available on record as well as the

settled proposition of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere

with the same.

No substantial question of law arises in the present second

appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed.

8. The stay petition and all pending applications also stand

dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 176-KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)