Dismissed

Bhanwar Lal v. Kalu Ram

Rajasthan HC25 Feb 2015CSA/290/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. The High Court affirmed the concurrent judgment that the suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession was unadoptable as the plaintiff failed to prove ownership under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Village Communities Regulation and did not implicate the Municipality as a necessary party.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed. The original suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession is dismissed. No costs awarded.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Kalu Ram — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.290/2009 Bhanwarlal Vs. Kalu Ram

¶2

Judgement dated 25/02/2015

¶3

1 of 4

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

::: J U D G E M E N T :::

¶6

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.290/2009

¶7

Bhanwarlal S/o Dharma Ram, by caste Ghanchi Vs. Kalu Ram S/o Karma Ji, by caste Sargara.

¶8

Date of Judgement : 25/02/2015.

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the appellant/plaintiff. Mr. Khet Singh on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Joshi, for the respondent/defendant.

¶13

¶14

BY THE COURT :

¶15

The appellant/plaintiff, Bhanwarlal S/o Sh. Dharma Ram, having lost concurrently before the two courts below, has preferred the present second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Abu Road, District: Sirhoi, in Civil Appeal No.20/2008- Bhanwarlal Vs. Kalu Ram, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed while affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Pindwara, District: Sirohi, In Civil Original Suit No.91/1993- Kalu Ram Vs. Bhanwarlal , whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for permanent injunction and recovery of possession against the

¶16

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.290/2009 Bhanwarlal Vs. Kalu Ram

¶17

Judgement dated 25/02/2015

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

respondent/defendant was dismissed with respect to suit property, which is a plot of land measuring 10920 square feet in Khasra No.573 in revenue Village Pindwara, District: Sirohi.

¶20

The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2003 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant, Bhanwarlal in the following manner: -

¶21

“1. द�स�र�म प�.ड. 3 ज�रह म� पकट करत� ह� कक 573 क� भ�मम म� स� क�ई कब�� क�ल�र�म क� नह�� ददय� थ�। 573 क� भ�मम म� स� द� ब�घ� भ�मम �� कल�कटर क� आद�श स� आब�द� भ�मम म� पररवरत,त ह-ई ह� उसक� ककस� भ�-भ�ग क� व�द� क� कब�� स-प-द, ककय� गय� ह�, इस समबन3 व�द� पक क� एक शबद क� भ� क�ई स�कय अमभल�ख पर नह�� आई ह�। अमभल�ख पर यह सव�क: त जसथरत ह� कक 3�र� 91 भ� - र��सव क� व�द� क� ववरद इस� ववव�दगसत सथल क� समबन3 म� आब�द� भ�मम म� पररवत,न स� पहल� क�र,व�ई चल� ह�। आब�द� भ�मम म� पररवत,न क� आद�श नगरप�मलक� क� पक म� ह�। नगरप�मलक� द�र� व�द� क� पक म� क�ई आव�टन नह�� ककय� गय� ह�। व�द� क� प�स कब�� क� क�ई आ3�र नह�� ह�। 3�र� 91 भ�-र��सव अध3रनयम क� अनतग,त चल� क�र,व�ई क� आ3�र पर व�द� समय-समय पर अरतकम� म�न� गय� ह� तथ� इस� क�रण उस पर श�जसतयD क� र�मशय�� अध3र�वपत क� गई ह� �� व�द� सवय� अपन� स�कय म� ब�त ल�कर आय� ह�।

¶22

आद�श

¶23

फलत : व�द� भ�वरल�ल क� यह द�व� ववरद परतव�द� क�ल�र�म ख�रर� ककय� ��त� ह�। खचF क� ब�र� म� क�ई आद�श नह��। उभय पकक�र�न अपन�-अपन� खच�, म-कदम� वहन कर�ग�। डडक� पच�, तद�न-स�र त�य�र ककय� ��व�।

¶24

Sd/(अश�क क- म�र अगव�ल) मसववल नय�य�3�श (क.ख.) वप�डव�ड� (मसर�ह�)।"

¶25

The first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff,

¶26

¶27

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.290/2009 Bhanwarlal Vs. Kalu Ram

¶28

Judgement dated 25/02/2015

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

Bhanwarlal, was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Abu Road, vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.2009 . The relevant portion of the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2009 reads as under: -

¶31

“उभय पकD क� तकI पर मनन ककय� गय� एव� पत�वल� क� अवल�कन ककय� गय�। पत�वल� क� अवल�कन स� यह सपष ह� कक ववव�ददत भ�मम क� मलककयत ब�बत क�ई सव�ममतव क� दसत�व अप�ल�णट द�र� न त� पसत-त ककय� गय� ह� एव� न ह� स�कय म� पदमश,त करव�य� गय� ह�। सवय� अप�ल�णट क� स�कय स� यह स�बबत ह� कक ववव�ददत भ�मम क� समबन3 म� उसक� अरतकममत दहसस� क� ब�बत 3�र� 91 भ� र��सव अध3रनयम क� तहत क�य,व�ह� ह-ई थ� एव� ज�सम� आर�वपत �-म�,न� अप�ल�णट द�र� �म� करव�य� गय� थ�, यह अप�ल�णट द�र� पसत-त दसत�व � D स� भ� स�बबत ह�। अत: अ3�नसथ नय�य�लय न� यह तनक� र�सप�णट क� पक म� तथ� अप�ल�णट क� ववरद रनरण,त कर क�ई त-दट कर क�ई त-दट क�ररत नह�� क� ह�।

¶32

आद�श

¶33

अप�ल�णट द�र� पसत-त अप�ल सवयय ख�रर� क� ��त� ह� तथ� अ3�नसथ नय�य�लय क� रनण,य व डडक� ददन�Qक 16.6.2003 क� प-वष क� ��त� ह�। डडक� पच�, बन�य� ��व�।

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the judgments and decree of the two courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal of the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the present second

¶35

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.290/2009 Bhanwarlal Vs. Kalu Ram

¶36

Judgement dated 25/02/2015

¶37

4 of 4

¶38

appeal deserves dismissal. Both the courts below after discussing the relevant evidence led by the parties have rightly and concurrently dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for permanent injunction and recovery of possession against the respondent/defendant. This Court does not find any ground to upset the judgments and decree passed by the two courts below.

¶39

This Court also again expresses its view that such civil suits for declaration, possession, or even injunction should not be entertained by the civil courts in the absence of the concerned public authority viz. Municipality or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, having been arrayed as party-defendant(s) in the civil suit as they are necessary and proper parties to such suits and this will also obviate encroachment of public/Govt. Lands by either of the privae parties. The courts below should ensure their presence and production of relevant records before granting or refusing any decree in such suits.

¶40

Resultantly, the present second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff assailing the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned parties and the courts below forthwith.

¶41

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶42

DJ/20

Bhanwar Lal v. Kalu Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal v. Kalu Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Hukma Vs Suraj Mal

Dilip Kumar Vs Mool Chand

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Raj. Th. Distt, Collector and Anr.

Nathu Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Singh

Giriraj Kumawat Vs Purushottam Mali

Omaram @ Om Prakash Vs Gopi Kishan