Vardi Chand vs Kishu Lal (2025:Rj-Jd:15206)
2025 Latest Caselaw 9262 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vardi Chand vs Kishu Lal (2025:Rj-Jd:15206) on 21 March, 2025

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2025:RJ-JD:15206]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 154/2019

1.       Vardi Chand S/o Chauth Mal Ji, Aged About 93 Years, B/c
         Lakhara, R/o Manpura, Tehsil Jhadol (Phalasiya), District
         Udaipur (Rajasthan)
2.       Govind S/o Vardi Chand, Aged About 66 Years, B/c
         Lakhara, R/o Manpura, Tehsil Jhadol (Phalasiya), District
         Udaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                         ----Appellants
                                    Versus
Kishu Lal S/o Dalichand, Aged About 85 Years, B/c Kalal, R/o
Manpura, Tehsil Jhadol (Phalasiya), District Udaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Prashant Tatia
                                Ms. Alka Pandey



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

21/03/2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed Civil Misc. Case

No.20/2005 seeking for permanent and mandatory injunction

against the defendant-appellants in respect of the suit property.

The plaintiff had claimed title through a patta issued by the

competent authority. The suit was decreed by judgment and

decree dated 16.01.2018. The first appellate court in Civil Appeal

No.20/2018 affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial judge

by judgment and decree dated 07.03.2019.

3. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order VI

Rule 17 CPC was filed stating therein that defendants have put

[2025:RJ-JD:15206] (2 of 2) [CSA-154/2019]

some idols etc. at the suit premises illegally, hence, a decree for

removal of the same be also granted. By order dated 30.03.2010,

the said prayer was allowed by the trial judge.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that in fact the

suit property was a public property and not individual property of

the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, the suit should have been filed

in representative capacity.

Learned counsel next contends that the claim of the plaintiff

was based on no documentary evidence as patta was not signed

by any of the authority.

5. On perusal of Ex.1A, it is evident that the second submission

is incorrect. Since the plaintiff had filed the suit claiming his own

title on the suit property, he was not required to file a

representative suit.

6. Since there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the

courts below, there is no perversity in the judgment of the court

below. This appeal has got no substantial question of law.

7. Accordingly, this Civil Second Appeal stands dismissed as

devoid of any merit.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J 15-nitin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)