Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Likhmaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:43753) on 6 October, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:43753]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 206/2024
1. Likhmaram S/o Sh. Jugaram Mali, Aged About 74 Years,
R/o Gangani, Teh. Baori, Dist. Jodhpur.
2. Chutraram S/o Sh. Chagnaram Mali, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Gangani, Teh. Baori, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Dist. Collector, Jodhpur.
2. Land Holder, Through Tehsildar, Baori
3. Superintendent Engineer, Public Construction Dept,
Jodhpur Vratt, Jodhpur.
4. Secretary, Public Construction Dept Ministry, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. Govind Ram S/o Sh. Lachuram Mali, R/o Gangani, Teh.
Baori, Dist. Jodhpur.
6. Rameshvar S/o Sh. Lachuram Mali, R/o Gangani, Teh.
Baori, Dist. Jodhpur.
7. Genaram S/o Sh. Lachuram Mali, (Deceased)
8. Kishnaram S/o Sh. Lachuram Mali, (Deceased)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Prajapati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
06/10/2025
1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has
been filed by the plaintiffs/ appellants against the judgment and
decree dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Original Suit No.16/12
(13104/2014) and the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2024
passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 01:58:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43753] (2 of 3) [CSA-206/2024]
Metro in Civil Regular Appeal No.07/2024 (36/24), whereby the
judgment and decree passed in Civil Original Suit No.16/12
(13104/2014) has been affirmed.
2. The facts in brief, for the purpose of present appeal are that
the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction
against the defendant that they may be restrained from
constructing gravel road on the disputed land claiming it to be
private land.
3. The learned Trial Court has framed as many as 3 issues.
While deciding the issues, the learned trial Court has held that the
plaintiffs-appellants through oral and documentary evidences have
failed to establish that the construction/ widening work of the
gravel road is being done on their private land or upon the land
other than the land acquired by the State Government for that
purpose. The learned Trial Court has further held that the
plaintiffs-appellants have admitted that the road which is being
constructed/ widened was acquired by the State Government in
the year 1977. Further, no documents were placed on record
before the learned Trial Court to establish that the land in question
falling in Khasra Nos.1202 and 1203 belongs to them. Having
recorded such findings, the learned Trial Court rejected the
plantiffs' suit for permanent injunction vide its judgment and
decree dated 27.08.2024.
4. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated
27.08.2024 has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate
Court vide its judgment and decree dated 08.10.2024 affirming
the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court. The
learned Appellate Court after considering the evidence available on
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 01:58:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43753] (3 of 3) [CSA-206/2024]
record in detail, has held that the findings of fact as recorded by
the learned Trial Court are correct.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while
passing the impugned judgment under consideration, learned Trial
Court has erred arriving at a conclusion in relation to issues Nos.1
to 3 and its finding is contrary to the oral and documentary
evidence produced by the appellants.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants and upon perusal of the judgments
impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court
as well as the Appellate Court have considered the documentary
and oral evidence in its true perspective. The appellants-plaintiffs
have miserably failed to prove that the land in question belongs to
them or the construction/ widening of gravel road work is being
carried out a land other than the land acquired by the State
Government in the year 1977.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any
perversity in the findings of the facts recorded by the learned
Courts below. No question of law, much less, any substantial
question of law is involved in the instant second appeal filed under
Section 100 of CPC which requires adjudication by this Court.
8. There is no merit in the present second appeal, for which, it
is dismissed.
9. Record of the case may be send back forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
27-divya/-
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 01:58:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
