[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Umrao Singh vs Neeru Bai (2026:Rj-Jd:148) on 6 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:148]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 113/2023
1. Umrao Singh S/o Bhom Singh, Aged About 66 Years,
Resident Of Jhupaghat, Tehsil And District Sirohi.
2. Lrs Of Radmal Singh, S/o Bhom Singh Ji Aged About Adult
Resident Of Sirohi Tehsil District Sirohi, Presently Residing
At Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi Through His Lrs-
2/1. Lash Kanwar W/o Late Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 81
Years, Pesa Aram, Resident Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District
Sirohi.
2/2. Shaitan Singh S/o Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 59 Years,
Pesa Kheti, Resident Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi.
2/3. Balwant Singh S/o Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 57 Years,
Pesa Kheti-Business, Resident Keral, Tehsil Shivganj,
District Sirohi.
2/4. Jagdish Singh S/o Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 51 Years,
Pesa Kheti, Resident Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi.
2/5. Anter Kanwar D/o Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 49 Years,
W/o Mevi Singh Ji, Pesa Home, Resident Of Savrada Tehsil
Sojat Road, District Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
Neeru Bai D/o Shankar Singh, Aged Adult Resident Of Village
Jhupaghat, District Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur, Ms. Rachita
Mathur and Mr. Harshit Goyal.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
06/01/2026
1. This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellants-
(Uploaded on 08/01/2026 at 12:15:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:148] (2 of 4) [CSA-113/2023]
plaintiffs against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.09.2022
passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in Civil First Appeal
No.03/2021 (C.I.S. No. 03/2021) titled as "Umrao Singh & Anr. vs.
Smt. Neeru Bai", whereby first appeal filed by the appellants-
plaintiffs has been dismissed and Judgment and Decree dated
27.07.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi in Civil
Original Suit No.07/2014 (C.I.S. No. 1063/2014) titled as "Umrao
Singh & anr. vs. Smt. Neeru Bai" dismissing suit for permanent
and mandatory injunction filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, has
been affirmed.
2. The facts which are germane for the second appeal, in
nutshell, are that plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent and
mandatory injunction regarding a plot measuring 50 x 18 square
feet totaling to 900 square feet, situated in front of their house at
Jhupaghat, Sirohi. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession
of the plot based on a registered sale deed dated 04.04.1955 and
stated that plot in question was closed with stone slabs to prevent
encroachment. According to the plaintiffs, on 13.02.2014,
defendant illegally removed stone slabs, entered the plot, erected
a flag and began unauthorised construction of temple like
structure, prompting filing of the suit for restraining further
construction and removing what was already built. The plaintiffs
alleged threats and abusive behavior by the defendant and
contended that completion of construction or installation of idols
would cause serious legal complications later.
3. The respondent-defendant denied all allegations, asserting
that disputed plot was her ancestral property, in her family's
possession for last 60-70 years and was given to her father long
(Uploaded on 08/01/2026 at 12:15:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:148] (3 of 4) [CSA-113/2023]
ago. She disputed plaintiffs' sale deed, claimed that the plaintiffs
had no title and alleged that they fabricated documents to grab
the land. The defendant maintained that access to the plot had
always been through her house, that old structures existed on the
plot, and that recent construction was only reconstruction on her
own land. She also raised legal objections that suit was barred by
limitation, beyond pecuniary jurisdiction and not maintainable due
to lack of possession by the plaintiffs.
4. The trial court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties,
framed as many as seven issues including issue relating to relief.
Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. Upon
appreciation of evidence on record, learned trial court decided
Issue Nos. 1 to 3 regarding ownership and possession of the suit
property against the appellants-plaintiffs. Aggrieved, appellants-
plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the first appellate court,
which dismissed the appeal, upheld the findings of the trial court
and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2021. Hence,
this second appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that both the
courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on
record. The appellants have claimed their possession over
disputed plot on the basis of sale-deed which was not challenged
by the respondent. There was no evidence produced by the
respondent in rebuttal. But despite that both the courts below
have erred in dismissing the suit and the appeal of the appellants.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that both
the courts below, after detailed appreciation of oral and
(Uploaded on 08/01/2026 at 12:15:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:148] (4 of 4) [CSA-113/2023]
documentary evidence, have recorded concurrent findings that the
appellants failed to prove ownership and possession over the suit
property. Learned counsel has contended that both courts below
have passed a well-reasoned judgment and no perversity, illegality
or jurisdictional error has been pointed out to justify interference.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the evidence available on record, this Court is of the
considered view that both the courts below have recorded
concurrent findings holding that the appellants-plaintiffs failed to
establish their possession over the suit property, therefore, in
absence of possession, relief of permanent injunction could not be
granted in their favour. These findings are based on proper
appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse. The
appellants-plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that findings
recorded by the courts below suffer from perversity,
misapplication of law or non-consideration of material evidence.
This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC,
can interfere only when a substantial question of law arises and
re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of concurrent factual
findings is not permissible.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned judgments, particularly as
no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises
for consideration in this second appeal.
10. The present second appeal is therefore, dismissed.
11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
41-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 08/01/2026 at 12:15:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
