Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratna Ram vs Jetha And Anr on 26 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:42982]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 341/1998
Ratna Ram s/o Dayaji
By caste Kumhar r/o Pachunda Kalan
Tehsil Sojat District Pali
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jetha s/o Boraji
2. Baludi w/o Pukha
By caste Kumhar r/o Pachunda Kalan
Tehsil Sojat District Pali
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayant Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
Reserved on :: 23/09/2025
Pronounced on :: 26/09/2025
1. The present second appeal has been filed assailing the
judgment and decree dated 12.08.1998 passed by Additional
District Judge, Sojat, District Pali as well as the judgment and
decree dated 02.06.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Sojat whereby the suit for permanent injunction of the plaintiff-
appellant has been rejected.
2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit contending that the
property over which the plaintiff has ownership and possession, is
situated in village Pachunda Kalan. The property was purchased by
the plaintiff in an auction held on 23.05.1968 and a sale certificate
was issued in this regard. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3, in collusion
with defendant No. 4, obtained a Patta in respect of the disputed
part of the land through File No. 79/82-83 of Panchayat Khokhra.
On this basis, the plaintiff prayed that since the defendants,
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42982] (2 of 6) [CSA-341/1998]
relying on the Patta issued in their favour, are bent upon to
dispossess the plaintiff, and therefore, a permanent injunction be
issued.
3. The defendants filed their reply denying the averments made
in the plaint, contending that the disputed land is the defendants'
"Pattasuda" land. They further stated that the plaintiff's sale
certificate itself shows that the neighboring land on one side
belongs to the defendant, and this fact is recorded in the sale
certificate. According to the sale certificate, only the house was
purchased by the plaintiff, and no adjacent piece of land was
included. Further, the Panchayat issued Patta to them after
following due process of law, after issuing public notice. The
plaintiff filed objections, which were duly considered and
subsequently rejected. On this basis, the Patta was issued.
Therefore, the defendants prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed the following issues:-
1- vk;k oknxzLr Fkkyk tks okn&i= ds lkFk layXu uD"ksa esa ,-ch-lh-
Mh- ekdZ esa n"kkZ;k x;k gS] og oknh dk feydh;rh o dCtk"kqnk gS]
ftls oknh us fuykeh esa [kjhn djus ds i"pkr~ ml ij fujUrj
dkfct jgkA
---oknh
2- vk;k xzke iapk;r us lkjh dkuwuh izfØ;k dh ikyuk dj rRi"pkr~
oknxzLr ckM+s dk iV~Vk izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa tkjh fd;kA
----izfroknhx.k
3- vk;k oknh us U;k;ky; flfoy dksVZ lkstr ls eqdnek fMØh dh
btjk; 41@67 ds tfj;s fuykeh esa fnukad 23-5-68 dks cksyh yxkdj
,d edku [kjhnf d;k Fkk o U;k;ky; }kjk edku dk gh lsy
lsfVZfQdsV tkjh fd;kx;k Fkk] ckM+s dk ughaA
-----izfroknhx.k
4- /kkjk 79 jkt-i- vf/k- dk uksfVl ugha nsus ls okn [kkfjt gksus ;ksX;
gSA
-----izfroknhx.k
5- nknjlh \
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42982] (3 of 6) [CSA-341/1998]
5. Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was
decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No. 3 was decided in
favour of the defendant. Issue No. 4 was not considered necessary
to be decided as defendant No. 4, the Gram Panchayat, was struck
off from the array of parties. Consequently, the suit was dismissed
by judgment and decree dated 02.06.1997.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
02.06.1997, the plaintiff-appellant preferred First Appeal No.
14/97, which was also dismissed by the learned appellate court
vide its judgment dated 12.08.1998. Against which, the present
second appeal has been filed.
7. On 06.07.1999, this Court while admitting the appeal framed
the following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether misconstruction of sale certificate
(Ex.2) executed by Court in favour of the plaintiff-
appellant in respect of land in dispute which is the
basis of right and title of the parties can be agitated
in second appeal as a substantial question of law. If
so, its effects ?
2. Whether the concurrent finding of fact relating
to title of the parties on the land in dispute is based
on misreading of Ex.2 which leads to the extent of
perversity and as such is not binding in second
appeal?"
8. The appeal is pending since 1998, and today, when the
matter was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the
appellant. Counsel for the respondents made his submissions.
9. Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a
concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, and
the suit for permanent injunction was rightly rejected after
appreciating the material evidence on record in the correct
perspective.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42982] (4 of 6) [CSA-341/1998]
10. He further argued that there is no misreading of Exhibit-2
(the sale certificate) on record. It was submitted that the sale
certificate Exhibit-2 itself mentions that the house purchased by
the plaintiff under the sale certificate is described with reference
to its neighboring properties. Specifically, on the northern side of
the said property purchased by the plaintiff, Bodji Jethiya Kumhar
ka "Bada", belonging to the defendant exists, and on the southern
side of the property, Ratania Kumhar ka "Bada" has been
indicated. It was further contended that as per the sale certificate,
no "Bada" of the plaintiff exists on the northern side; rather, the
plaintiff's "Bada" is situated on the southern side of the purchased
house.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent also drew the attention
of this Court to Exhibit-1, wherein the boundaries as mentioned in
the sale certificate Exhibit-2 are matching, except that towards
the northern side, the disputed "Bada" has been claimed by the
plaintiff. However, the sale certificate itself shows that no "Bada"
belonging to the plaintiff exists on the northern side; rather, it
belongs to the defendant. Furthermore, in Exhibit-1, the plaintiff
has deliberately not indicated any "Bada" owned by him on the
southern side. Therefore, he contends that Exhibit-2 (the sale
certificate) as well as Exhibit-1 were clearly appreciated by both
the learned trial court and the appellate court, and there is no
misreading or misconstruction of the documents on record. He
accordingly prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents, this
Court finds that in Exhibit-1, which is a site plan, no length,
breadth, or dimensions of the property belonging either to the
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42982] (5 of 6) [CSA-341/1998]
plaintiff or the defendant have been mentioned by the plaintiff.
Thus, from a reading of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2, it cannot be
ascertained what was purchased by the plaintiff under the sale
certificate (Exhibit-2), whether he had possession on the same as
shown in Exhibit-1, or possession of any additional land more than
that what he purchased. Having failed to mention the length,
breadth, and size of the purchased property, and subsequently
claiming that the "Bada" on the northern side belonged to him,
indicates that the plaintiff deliberately refrained from presenting
the correct facts on record for proper comparison with the sale
certificate.
13. In the absence of length and breadth in Exhibit-1, this Court
can render a finding only with respect to the boundaries, as the
boundaries are mentioned in the sale certificate as well as in
Exhibit-1. As per the sale certificate (Exhibit-2), it is clearly shown
that on the northern side, Bodji Jethiya Kumhar's "Bada" is
situated; on the southern side, the "Bada" of Ratniya Kumhar is
indicated; towards the eastern side, a way leading to the house
and "Bada" is mentioned; and towards the western side, "Khalsa
Jameen" is indicated. If the said sale certificate is compared with
Exhibit-1, this Court finds that, in the absence of length and
breadth, it cannot be concluded that the land on the northern
side, as claimed by the plaintiff to be the disputed "Bada", forms
part of the property described in the sale certificate (Exhibit-2).
14. So far as the boundaries are concerned, they are matching,
and if the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit-2 are matching with
those in Exhibit-1, it clearly indicates that the so-called disputed
"Bada" cannot belong to the plaintiff, as the "Bada" on the
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42982] (6 of 6) [CSA-341/1998]
northern side of the plaintiff's purchased property belongs to the
defendant.
15. Upon a reading of Exhibits 1 and 2, this Court finds that
there is no misreading of Exhibit-2 (the sale certificate); rather
reading of the sale certificate and conduct of the plaintiff in not
mentioning the length, breadth, or size of the property in Exhibit-1
goes to show that the plaintiff intentionally attempted to hide the
actual area under his possession at the time of filing the suit. In
the absence of the length, breadth, or area mentioned in Exhibit-
1, the plaintiff cannot claim that the disputed property, i.e., the
"Bada", forms part of the property covered under the sale
certificate (Exhibit-2). Furthermore, since the measurements of
boundaries have not been specified by the plaintiff in Exhibit-1,
the Court based on the sale certificate alone, concluded that there
was no land between the property purchased under the sale
certificate and the "Bada" belonging to the defendant. This Court
after examination of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 finds that there is no
misreading as discussed above and both the questions are
answered in negative.
16. Since both the question are answered in negative, the
present second appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J
praveen/-
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 01:58:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
