Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jodharam vs Bada Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:48832) on 13 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:48832]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 186/2023
Jodharam S/o Sh. Chenaji, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of
Kachholi, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bada Ram S/o Gamaji, Resident Of Kachholi, Tehsil
Pindwara, District Sirohi.
2. Lrs. Of Manaram, S/o Gamaji Through His Lrs.
2/1. Smt. Savita W/o Widow Of Late Shri Manaram, Resident
Of Kachholi, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
2/2. Nepal S/o Late Shri Manaram, Minor Through His Natural
Guardian Mother Smt. Savita W/o Late Shri Manaram,
Resident Of Kachholi, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
2/3. Indra S/o Late Shri Manaram, Minor Through His Natural
Guardian Mother Smt. Savita W/o Late Shri Manaram,
Resident Of Kachholi, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
3. Papiya S/o Dhanaji, Resident Of Kachholi, Tehsil Pindwara,
District Sirohi.
4. Punaram S/o Gamaji, Resident Of Kachholi, Tehsil
Pindwara, District Sirohi.
5. Gram Panchayat Kachholi, Through Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat Kachholi, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
13/11/2025
1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C.
has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and
decree dated 25.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional District
(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 01:34:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48832] (2 of 3) [CSA-186/2023]
Judge, Pindwara, District Sirohi in Civil Appeal Decree No.03/2020
(11/2013), whereby the judgment dated 20.05.2013 passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pindwara in Civil Original
Suit No.09/2010 has been affirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on
19.03.2010, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of
title, cancellation of patta and permanent injunction against the
respondents-defendants. It was pleaded in the suit that the
appellant-plaintiff is the owner of a plot alongwith shop for which
he is having patta No.892/2001 issued in his favour. Adjacent to
the said plot, there is a piece of land admeasuring 50 × 20 square
feet, over which the appellant-plaintiff and his family are in
possession. However, the Gram Panchayat illegally issued a patta
in favour of respondent-defendant- Punaram for the same piece of
land. The respondents-defendants filed a written statement
stating that the patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat
after adhering to due process of law. The revision petition filed by
the appellant-plaintiff before the District Collector against
issuance of patta was rejected by passing a detailed order.
3. The learned trial Court framed as many as six issues and
decided issue Nos.1 and 2, which were fundamental in nature,
against the appellant-plaintiff. While deciding issue Nos.1 and 2
conjointly, the learned trial Court held that the appellant-plaintiff
had failed to prove his possession over the suit property and that
the patta in favour of the respondent-defendant has been issued
by the Gram Panchayat after duly following the process provided
under law. It was, therefore, held that the respondent-defendant
Punaram has a valid legal title to use and possess the land.
(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 01:34:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48832] (3 of 3) [CSA-186/2023]
4. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated
20.05.2013 passed by the learned trial Court was also dismissed
by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
25.07.2023, affirming the findings of fact recorded by the learned
trial Court. The learned appellate Court, after considering the
evidence available on record has held that the findings of fact
recorded by the learned trial Court are correct.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the appellant and upon a careful 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 true
perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant has utterly failed to
point out any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the
Courts below. No question of law, much less any substantial
question of law, arises for consideration by this Court in this
second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C.
6. In view of the above, the present second appeal is devoid of
merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
13-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 01:34:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
