Parbat Singh vs Narayan Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:3853)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4995 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4995 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Parbat Singh vs Narayan Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:3853) on 21 January, 2025

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2025:RJ-JD:3853]                    (1 of 3)                         [CSA-130/2022]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 130/2022

Parbat Singh S/o Chhail Singh Jaitawat, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o 16, Shanti Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector No. 3, Udaipur.
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                    Versus
Narayan Singh S/o Fateh Singh Rathore, R/o Amarpura Jagir,
Tehsil Vallabhnagar, Distt. Udaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Deelip Kawadia with
                                Ms. Aditi Moad


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

21/01/2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The plaintiff-respondent brought Civil Original Suit

No.81/2008 claiming a decree of permanent injunction against the

defendant-appellant restraining them from disturbing the

possession of plaintiff over the suit land.

The claim of the plaintiff was based on acquisition of title

through a registered sale deed followed by possession on the

purchased land.

3. The defendant-appellant contested the suit on the ground

that the defendant had already entered into an agreement to

purchase the said property from original owner. During trial, the

agreement to sale was not taken on record by the trial judge

stating that since agreement to sale was not a registered

document, it cannot be considered as evidence.

[2025:RJ-JD:3853] (2 of 3) [CSA-130/2022]

4. The appellant did not challenge the said order before the first

appellate court, therefore, the ultimate position is that the

document of claim of the appellant was not on the record. The

appellate court dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment

dated 01.04.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.42/2016.

5. The substantial questions of law stated in the memo of

appeal are as follows:-

"1. Whether the Judgment and decree of the Learned First appellate court as well as the Learned Trial Court are without jurisdiction as the same are based on findings which are totally in disregard to the evidence on record?

2.Whether the Learned First appellate court has committed illegality in upholding the findings of the learned Trial court without taking into consideration the relevant evidence on record?

3. Whether the findings of the Learned First Appellate Court as well as the Learned Trial Court are vitiated by application of wrong tests and arrived at on the basis of conjectures and assumptions which has resulted in miscarriage of justice?

4. Whether the learned Courts below have grossly erred in deciding the question of title of the suit property when the suit filed is of mere Permanent Injunction?

5. Whether the learned Courts below grossly erred in declaring the ownership of the land in question in favour of the plaintiff in a suit filed for mere Injunction simplicitor and not a declaratory suit?

6. Whether both the courts below have committed a gross error in giving a finding that the land in question does not belong to the ownership of the appellant- defendant?

7. Whether the learned Courts below have grossly erred in discarding the evidence regarding old and continuous possession of the appellant- defendant over the suit property?"

6. None of the questions raised above are substantial questions

of law, rather, are mixed questions of law and fact. The second

[2025:RJ-JD:3853] (3 of 3) [CSA-130/2022]

appellate court cannot enter into re-appreciation of evidence to

ascertain the correctness and legality of the judgments of the

courts below. Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed as devoid of

any merit.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J 17-nitin/-