The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant plaintiff. The court held that concurrent findings of facts by courts below established the failure to prove easementary rights over the disputed lane, and no question of law arose.
Second appeal dismissed with no question of law involved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.820/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.820/2011
Bhagwati Lal-Appellant Versus
Chiranji Lal & Ors.-Respondents
Date of Order-::-07.09.2015
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Mr. J.P. Goyal Senior Counsel with Mr. Aditya Sharma, for appellant. Ms. Shefali Sharma for Mr. Lokesh Sharma for respondent/s.
ORDER
By the Court:-
1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellantplaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City (hereinafter referred to as “the appellate court”) in Civil Appeal No.16/07, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Gangapurcity (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Civil Suit No.117/94.
2. The appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants for removing the sand, stones collected in the lane shown by red colour in the map annexed to the plaint and the construction put up at one corner of the disputed lane. It was alleged interalia by the appellant that the appellant and the respondent No.1 alongwith one Hari Prasad, Bholaram had jointly purchased the land by a registered sale deed on 03.10.1972 from one Nawal Kishore, and thereafter the said land was divided into four divisions. The plaintiff had
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.820/2011
2
constructed the residential house and the shops as shown by yellow color in the map, and the defendant No.1 also put up the construction as shown by green color in the map, leaving 3 feet lane in between them. Since the respondents-defendants were putting up construction and making encroachment on the said lane, the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the respondents by filing the written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint.
3. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff vide the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2007, against which the appellant had preferred the appeal before the appellate court which has also been dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2010.
4. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after having perused the documents on record, more particularly the judgments passed by the courts below, it appears that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below to the effect that the appellant had failed to prove his easementary rights over the disputed lane. The learned senior counsel Mr. J.P. Goyal for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the courts below. There being no question of law muchless substantial question of law being involved in the present second appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(Bela M. Trivedi) J.
R.Vaishnav 23.
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.820/2011
3
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed." Ramesh Vaishnav Personal Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant plaintiff has a substantial question of law or illegality in the findings that they failed to prove easementary rights over the disputed lane.
Bhagwati Lal
Chiranji Lal & Ors.
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
