Lrs Of Sole Appellant Late Keshar Nath vs The Municipal Board, Chhapar ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8004 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lrs Of Sole Appellant Late Keshar Nath vs The Municipal Board, Chhapar ... on 27 February, 2025

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2025:RJ-JD:11377]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 212/2016

LRs of Sole appellant Late Keshar Nath

1.       Smt. Bali Devi W/o Late Keshar Nath, Aged About 82
         Years, R/o Village Chhaper, Tehsil Sujangarh, Distt.
         Churu.
2.       Om Prakash S/o Late Keshar Nath, Aged About 52 Years,
         R/o Village Chhaper, Tehsil Sujangarh, Distt. Churu.
3.       Smt. Chunni Devi D/o Late Keshar Nath, W/o Net Nath,
         aged        about   48      years,      R/o      Village    Reedi,   Tehsil
         Dungergarh, Distt. Bikaner.
4.       Smt. Pwemeshwary D/o Late Keshar Nath, W/o Panna
         Nath, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Reedi, Tehsil
         Dungergarh, Distt. Bikaner.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1.      The Municipal Board, Chhapar, through its Chairman.
2.      The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Chhapar, Tehsil
Sujangarh, Distt. Churu.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Rajesh Punia.
                                   Mr. Rajendra Prasad.
For Respondent(s)            :     Dr. Prathistha Dave.


       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order 27/02/2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. Original plaintiff Keshar Nath had brought the civil suit for a

decree of injunction against the respondent Municipal Board from

disturbing the possession of the plaintiff on the suit property.

Further relief was sought for asking the defendants/ respondents

to restore the gate install at the suit property which was allegedly

removed by the respondents.

[2025:RJ-JD:11377] (2 of 3) [CSA-212/2016]

3. The plaintiff's case is that one Dhan Das had obtained patta

in respect of the suit property years back, after Dhan Das, his son

Hanuman Das sold the property through an agreement dated

13.04.2011 to Keshar Das S/o Likham Das. The original plaintiff

purchased the same property through an agreement to sale from

Keshar Das and as such suit was filed claiming long possession.

The learned trial Judge while decreeing the Civil Original Suit

No.86/2011 by judgment and decree dated 12.05.2016 did not

consider that claim of the plaintiff was based on an agreement

which does not create title and unless the plaintiff pleads and

proves title, injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated

03.09.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.05/2016 (Civil Appeal

Decree No.06/2016) set aside the judgment of the trial court. The

first Appellate Court considered that suit property was never

owned by the plaintiff as title holder. The First Appellate Court

accepted the case of the respondent Municipal Board that it was

land of the Municipal Board and in the past public functions had

taken place on that property. Infact it was a vacant land and

encroached upon by the plaintiff/appellant. Learned First Appellate

Court has considered the finding of the trial Court issue-wise and

noted that no one can transfer a better title than he himself

possessed. In fact the vendor of the plaintiff had no title over the

property as he was also acting upon an agreement with Hanuman

Das.

5. Following questions have been stated as substantial

questions of law involved in this second appeal:-

"(i) Whether the learned first appellate court has committed any illegality in reversing the judgment and

[2025:RJ-JD:11377] (3 of 3) [CSA-212/2016]

decree passed by the learned civil court, without giving independent and different finding issuewise?

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court without its independent finding on the basis of evidence is not unjust and contrary to the evidence?

(iii) Whether the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2016 passed by the learned first appellate court can be sustained without independent findings issuewise?

(iv) Whether the case of the respondents-defendants can be said to have been established without controverting the evidence led by the appellant- plaintiff?

(v) Whether the learned first appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned civil court without there being any rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the appellant- plaintiff?

(vi) Any other appropriate substantial question of law which this Hon'ble Court deems just for consideration, may also kindly be framed."

6. Evidently, the First Appellate Court who reverse the finding

of the trial court has assigned reason for reversal, may be in few

sentences in as much as the First Appellate Court has stated that

the learned trial Court failed to consider that the vendor of the

plaintiff had no title as such plaintiff also did not get any title to

the suit property. In the circumstances no decreed could have

been passed in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, the aforesaid

questions are mixed of law and facts and not substantial questions

of law.

7. Hence, the instant civil second appeal stands dismissed as

devoid of any merit.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J 24-suraj/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)