Dismissed

Smt. Bhuri Devi and Ors. v. Lrs of Mangi Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 May 2018CSA/179/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a second appeal filed by plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of their suit for injunction and damages. The court held that the lower courts correctly found the plaintiffs failed to prove sole ownership of the western wall, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed as there is no substantial question of law.

Smt. Bhuri Devi and Ors. Vs Lrs of Mangi Lal and Ors. — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR.

¶3

¶4

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 179 / 2015.

¶5

Smt. Bhuri Devi Wife of Late Shri Bhoormal Jain (Since dead)

¶6

Ramesh Kumar Son of Late Shri Bhoormal Jain

¶7

Bharat Kumar Son of Late ShriBhoormal Jain

¶8

Vimal Chand Son of Late Shri Bhoormal Jain

¶9

all the appellants are by caste Jain, Resident of Village Dailana Bada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali

¶10

(Appellant No. 1 died during the first appeal).

¶11

----Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶12

Versus

¶13

LR’s of Late Shri Mangi Lal Son of Likhmichand Jain:-

¶14

(A) Hitesh Kumar Son of Mangilal

¶15

(B) Smt. Hulasi Widow of Mangilal

¶16

¶17

(D) Rekha Daughter of Mangilal

¶18

(E) Seema Daughter of Mangilal

¶19

(F) Preeti Daughter of Mangilal

¶20

(A to F caster Jain residents of Dailana Bada)

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[CSA-179/2015]

¶23

Madanraj Son of Likhmi Chand

¶24

Javer Chand Son of Likhmi Chand

¶25

Both by Caste Jain Resident of Dailana Bada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Appellant(s) :

¶28

Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Bhatnagar.

¶29

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶30

Judgment

¶31

05/05/2018

¶32

The present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate Court”) in Civil Appeal Decree No. 27/2006, affirming the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Desuri, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Civil Original Suit No. 27/1993, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

¶33

The facts, in brief, needful for the purpose of present second appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction as well as damages against the respondents-defendants, seeking injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the western wall of the plaintiffs’ house.

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

[CSA-179/2015]

¶36

The learned Trial Court framed following six issues:-

¶37

^^¼1½ vk;k oknh ds edku uD”ks e s a ekdZ , ch lh Mh ds if”pe rjQ dh nhokj oknh ds vdsys dh feYdh;r dh gS \ &&oknh

¶38

¼2½ vk;k izfroknhx.k us nf{k.k rjQ u;k ckl esa u;k njoktk [kksyk o ekdZ bZ ,Q th ,p Hkkx ij vfrdze.k fd;k] if”peh nhokj dk liksVZ fy;k o okn ls iwoZ 35 o’kZ iqjkuh f[kMfd;ksa o jks”kunku can fd;s] ftlls gok] jks”kuh :d x;h gSa \ &&oknh

¶39

¼3½ vk;k oknh izfroknh ls crkSj gtkZuk :i;k 2000@& nks gtkj izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gS \

¶40

While deciding issue No.1, the learned Trial Court found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their sole rights over the common wall and that they alone had right to use the same. The Trial Court also found that both the plaintiffs and the defendants were entitled for using the common wall, situated in the western side of the plaintiffs’ house and as such, none of their

¶41

(4 of 4)

¶42

[CSA-179/2015]

¶43

easementary rights have been violated. In view of the findings aforesaid, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

¶44

In an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment aforesaid, the learned Appellate Court, after discussing the evidence in detail, while affirming the findings of the Trial Court qua issues No.1 and 2, has upheld the rejection of the plaintiffs’ suit.

¶45

Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, submitted that the Courts below have not appreciated the oral evidence and pleadings of the parties, in its true perspective and have erred in recording the findings qua issues No. 1 and 2.

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and upon perusal of the judgments impugned, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the appellants-plaintiffs in relation to the said wall observing and holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the wall in question belonged to the plaintiffs alone and their easementary rights have been infringed. Mr. Bhatnagar has failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court, nor has he been able to show involvement of any substantial question of law in the present second appeal.

¶47

Finding no substance in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

¶48

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶49

/Mohan/49

Smt. Bhuri Devi and Ors. v. Lrs of Mangi Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhuri Devi and Ors. v. Lrs of Mangi Lal and Ors.

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

Madan Lal and Ors. Vs Chaina Ram and Ors.

Mustafa Khan and Anr. Vs Aakash Agarwal and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Champa Bai and Ors.

Lrs of Amba Lal Vs Lrs of Satyaprakash and Ors.

Dilip Singh Vs Commissioner North Jda and Anr.

Sohan Singh and Ors. Vs Suresh Singh and Ors.