Rajasthan High Court
Lekh Raj vs Fateh Singh on 14 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:12691]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 180/1994
1. Lekh Raj @ Nek Ram (Since deceased) through his Legal
Representatives :
1/1. Kumar Pal,
1/2. Sunder Singh,
both sons of Late Lekh Raj.
1/3. Smt. Baikunthi widow of Lekj Raj,
2. Ram Sarana Son of Ram Dayal,
3. Sahab Singh Son of Ram Chandra,
4. Shiv Ram Son of Shri Buddhi,
5. Pyare Son of Shri Buddhi
6. Ram Singh Son of Shri Buddhi
Residents of Sunari, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur
----Appellant
Versus
Fateh Singh Son of Shri Kamal Singh, Since deceased through
his Legal Representatives:-
1/1. Bhagwan Singh
1/2. Atar Singh
Both Sons of Fateh Singh, Resident of Sunari, Tehsil Kumher,
District Bharatpur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Senior Counsel with
Mr. Rajat Ranjan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Bhargava, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 14/03/2024
This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants-
defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Section 100 CPC
against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1994 passed by
Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur in Civil Regular Appeal
[2024:RJ-JP:12691] (2 of 4) [CSA-180/1994]
No.12/88 (20/88), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-
plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') was allowed and judgment and
decree dated 28.11.1988 passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate
No.2, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.37/76 dismissing the plaintiff's
suit for permanent injunction has been set aside and the plaintiff's
suit for permanent injunction has been decreed against the
defendants.
Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the
defendants in which plaintiff stated that plaintiff and defendants
are neighbourers and reside in Village Sunari, District Bharatpur.
Plaintiff had possession over the disputed Nohra and sought
injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering
with the plaintiff's possession.
Defendants filed a written statement and denied the
averments made by the plaintiff and stated that disputed Nohra
was in their possession and ownership. Plaintiff had no possession
or ownership over the disputed Nohra.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial
court framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether Nohra mentioned in para 2 of plaint is in
possession and ownership of the plaintiff?
(2) Whether on 08.05.1976, defendants tried to demolish
southern side wall of Nohra in question and also
threatened to include the Nohra in question in their
agricultural field?
(3) Whether on account of para 13 of the written statement,
the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit?
[2024:RJ-JP:12691] (3 of 4) [CSA-180/1994]
(4) Whether market value of the disputed Nohra is
Rs.5000/- and plaintiff had paid deficit court fees?
(5) Whether on account of para 16 of written statement,
plaintiff was not entitled to file the suit?
(6) Whether defendants are entitled to get Rs.500/- on
cost?
(7) Relief?
Trial Court after hearing of both the parties, dismissed the
suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment dated 28.11.1988. Plaintiff
preferred the appeal and appellate court vide judgment dated
08.02.1994 set aside the judgment dated 28.11.1988 passed by
the trial court and restrained the defendants to interfere with the
Nohra which was in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.
On 16.05.2019, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had framed
the following substantial question of law:-
"whether the appellate court was right in
holding that the plaintiff was dispossessed during the
pendency of the suit and the findings recorded by
the learned appellate court in this regard are not
perverse?"
Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that
learned appellate court had not appreciated the evidence led by
the parties and wrongly set aside the judgment passed by the trial
court. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that
plaintiff failed to prove the ownership and possession over the
disputed Nohra. The said Nohra was in the possession of the
defendants. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also
submits that the plaintiff had not sought the declaration. So,
[2024:RJ-JP:12691] (4 of 4) [CSA-180/1994]
simplicitor suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. So,
judgment and decree of the appellate court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendants and
submitted that learned appellate court rightly reversed the
judgment passed by the trial court because the plaintiff from his
evidence clearly proved that disputed Nohra was in the possession
of the plaintiff. Defendants had no right to interfere it. So,
judgment of the appellate court is well-worded and based on
cogent findings. So, no interference is required therewith. So,
appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
Learned appellate Court while reversing the judgment passed
by the trial court clearly mentioned that disputed Nohra was in the
possession of the plaintiffs. So, plaintiffs are entitled to get the
injunction against the defendants to the effect that they shall not
interfere with Nohra which was in the ownership and possession of
the plaintiff. So, in my considered opinion, the present appeal
being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands
dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /05
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
