Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Singh vs Tej Singh And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:48564) on 12 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:48564]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 142/2013
Laxman Singh S/o Shri Vagating Ji @ Bakhtawar Singh Ji, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o Khindara Gav, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali,
Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Tej Singh S/o Bhur Ji, R/o Khindara Gav, Tehsil Sumerpur,
District Pali, Raj.
2. Balu Singh S/o Bagh Singh Ji R/o Khindara Gav, Tehsil
Sumerpur, District Pali, Raj.
3. Deep Singh S/o Bagh Singh Ji, R/o Khindara Gav, Tehsil
Sumerpur, District Pali, Raj.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
12/11/2025
1. The present appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C., 1908
has been filed by the appellant-Laxman Singh against the
judgment and decree dated 06.02.2013 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Civil Appeal No. 01/2011,
whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2010 passed by
the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Sumerpur in Civil Original Suit No.
45/2005 has been affirmed.
2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction
against the respondents-defendants No. 1 and 2 stating that on
the northern side of the plaintiff's house there is a 20-feet-wide
road. It was averred in the suit that on the eastern side of the
aforesaid way there is a bada (open land) of the defendants, upon
which the defendants have illegally extended their possession,
(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 01:29:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48564] (2 of 2) [CSA-142/2013]
resulting in encroachment over the way. A written statement was
filed on behalf of the respondents-defendants wherein it was
stated that a suit regarding the same matter had previously been
filed and a decree on the basis of compromise was passed therein.
The fact of construction over the disputed way was admitted;
however, it was denied that the way in question is 20 feet wide.
3. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of both
parties, framed four issues including the issue of relief. All issues
were decided against the plaintiff. While deciding Issue No. 3, the
learned trial Court held that in the same matter, a compromise
decree had earlier been passed in Suit No. 22/92, and therefore,
the present suit is barred by possession of Section 11 C.P.C.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon
perusal of the impugned judgments, this Court is of the opinion
that both the Courts below have considered the documentary and
oral evidence in their correct perspective. No perversity in the
findings of fact recorded by the Courts below could be pointed out
by learned counsel for the appellant. No question of law, much
less any substantial question of law, arises in this second appeal
filed by the appellant under Section 100 C.P.C. so as to warrant
adjudication by this Court.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present second
appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
22-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 01:29:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
