Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gomati Devi vs The Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2023
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2023:RJ-JD:27923]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 170/2020
Gomati Devi W/o Shri Pura Ram Gaur, Aged About 74 Years, B/c
Brahmin, R/o 4, Hanwant Colony, Raika Bagh, Jodhpur, Presently
Residing At Lakshmi Nagar, Opposite Officers Colony Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Near
Polytechnic College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
04/09/2023
1. The present second appeal has been preferred against
judgment and decree dated 07.09.2020 passed by the District
Judge, Jodhpur District in Civil Appeal No.11/2017 whereby the
judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Civil Judge,
Jodhpur District in Civil Original Suit No.256/2014 (364/2012) has
been affirmed. Vide the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017,
learned trial Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit for permanent
injunction as preferred by the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant Municipal
Corporation was threatening to dispossess her from the land of
her ownership measuring 15 x 60 sq.ft. No written statement was
filed on behalf of the defendant neither was any evidence led by
him. On basis of pleadings made by the plaintiff, one issue was
framed by learned trial Court which reads as under :
[2023:RJ-JD:27923] (2 of 3) [CSA-170/2020]
"01- vk;k oknh] izfroknh dks oknh ds okni= ds in la[;k
01 o 02 esa of.kZr jgoklh; tk;nkn esa o'kksZa iqjkus cus gq,
iDds fuekZ.k dk;Z Vhu "ksM] yksgs dh tkfy;kW o njokts ij
ls oknh dks csn[ky djus ;k djokus ls izfroknh dks tfj;s
LFkkbZ fu'ks/kkKk ikcan djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \"
3. While deciding the said issue, the learned trial Court
specifically concluded that no document pertaining to the
ownership of the plaintiff was placed on record. The Court found
that although in her affidavit in evidence, the plaintiff had averred
that she had purchased the land in question vide agreement dated
10.11.2011 from one Dev Krishna Gaur but no such agreement
was placed on record. Further, learned Court took into
consideration the contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff
in her cross-examination wherein she at one instance submitted
that there was a Gali adjoining to her residential house whereas
on second instance she submitted that there was a open space.
In view of the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove her ownership
on the land in question, both the Courts below reached to the
concurrent finding that she was not entitled for any injunction in
her favour.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material available on record.
5. A perusal of the statements of PW-1 Smt. Gomati Devi as
recorded makes it clear that counsel for the plaintiff specifically
submitted before the Court that he did not intend to place on
record the original documents and therefore, the copies of the
documents as placed on record could not be marked as exhibits.
The note as made by the learned Judge reads as under :
[2023:RJ-JD:27923] (3 of 3) [CSA-170/2020]
"fnΠ16&8&16 dks "kiFk fnykbZ xbZ
uksV & odhy oknh }kjk ewy nLrkost is"k ugha djuk
pkgk ftlls izn"kZ ugha Mkys tk ldsA
uksV & xokg us eq[; ijh{k.k ds :i esa izLrqr
"kiFk&i= dks lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k bl ij xokg ds
gLrk{kj gSA"
6. In view of the admitted fact that no document was exhibited
on behalf of the plaintiff to prove her ownership on the land in
question and rather the same was specifically denied, this Court is
of the clear opinion that the concurrent findings as arrived by the
learned Courts below does not deserve any interference and no
substantial question of law arise in the present appeal.
7. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.
8. The stay application and the pending applications, if any, also
stand dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
30-Vij/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
