Dismissed

Smt. Devi v. Sanjeev Chaudhary and Anr.

Rajasthan HC20 Apr 2018CSA/322/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court of Rajasthan rejected the appellant's challenge to the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts. The courts held that the appellant possesses no easementary rights over the subject land, being bound by a prior adverse adjudication, and thus no substantial question of law exists.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal rejected; judgment and decree dated 03.06.2017 affirmed.

Smt. Devi Vs Sanjeev Chaudhary and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 322 / 2017

¶3

Smt. Devi W/o Bhanwerlal, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Khawas, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Jalore.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sanjeev Chaughary S/o Sukhram, By Caste Chaudhary, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Jalore.

¶7

Nagar Palika Mandal, Jalore.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Mehta

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Judgment

¶12

20/04/2018

¶13

The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant – plaintiff, laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Court”) whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (SD) No.2, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) has been affirmed.

¶14

The facts in nutshell are that the appellant – plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, inter alia contending that he has got easementary rights over 15 ft. wide strip of land, on which, the defendants were proceeding to raise construction. The plaintiff prayed that the defendants be restrained from raising construction, for protecting his easementary rights.

¶15

While rejecting the suit filed by the appellant, the Trial Court had observed that in an earlier suit filed by Mr. Ranjeet Singh - the predecessor in title, the Civil Court had permitted the Municipal Board to raise the construction or allot the land leaving 15 ft. land and decided issue No.2 against the plaintiff and rejected the suit so filed, while observing as under:-

¶16

** oLrqfLFkfr ;gh izdV gksrh gS fd j.kthrflag ds ikl ,d Hkw[k.M Fkk ftldh fu;eu jkf”k mlus uxjikfydk esa tek djok;h Fkh ijUrq lacaf/kr Hkw[k.M dk fu;eu vHkh rd ugha gqvk gSA ewyr% tks Hkw[k.M mlds ikl Fkk ml Hkw[k.M ij vkokxeu esa vojks/k rc iSnk gqvk tc uxjikfydk us ugj ds ikl ds Hkw[k.Mksa dks fuyke djuk pkgkA ,slh voLFkk esa j.kthrflag }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ij izn”kZ &6 ds ek/;e ls 15 QqV pkSMk jkLrk j.kthr flag dks mlds Hkw[k.M ij vkokxeu gsrq NksMs tkus ds fy, uxjikfydk dks ikcUn fd;k ijUrq mlh Hkw[k.M dk ,d Hkkx oknh;k dks j.kthrflag ds }kjk fodz; fd;k x;kA fLFkfr ;gh gS fd tks Hkkx oknh;k dks fodz; fd;k x;k gS og lh/kk&lh/kk fdlh Hkh ekxZ ls tqMk gqvk ugha gS vFkkZr~ oknh;k dks vius Hkw[k.M ij igqWpus ds fy, jkLrk ugha gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa oknh;k us ;g okn izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk oknh;k ds Hkw[k.M dk njoktk if”pe esa [kqyrk gS rks ek= blls fookfnr Hkwfe jkLrs dh Hkwfe ugha cu tk,xh tcfd rFkkdfFkr Hkwfe dk vkoaVu fu;ekuqlkj uxjikfydk ds }kjk fd;k x;k gSA oknh;k ds rFkkdfFkr njokts ls fdl O;fDr ds dkSuls vf/kdkj izHkkfor gksaxs ;g bl okn ls fHkUu fo’k;oLrq gSA

¶17

lacaf/kr U;kf;d n`’VkUrksa dk lknj v/;;u fd;k x;k A eSa fo}ku~ vfHkHkk’kd }kjk dh x;h cgl ls leFkZu j[krk gwW fd ekxZ dk vf/kdkj egRroiw.kZ gS rFkk fdlh dks Hkh mDr vf/kdkj esa O;o/kku dkfjr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS ijUrq mDr vf/kdkj dh iqf’V ls iwoZ oknh;k dks ;g fl} djuk gksxk fd fookfnrLFky oLrqr% ekxZ gSA ;fn fookfnrLFky ekxZ dh Hkweh gh ugha gS rks mlds izfr vf/kdkj dSls mRiu gksxsa vkSj ;gh fLFkfr bl izdj.k esa Hkh gSA oknh;k ds dgus ek= ls dksbZ Hkwfe ekxZ ugha cu tk,xhA oknh;k dks oLrqr% ;g

¶18

fl} djuk gksxk A ijUrq ftl rF; dks fl} djus esa oknh;k iw.kZr;k vlQy jgh gSA vr% fook|d la[;k 2 oknh;k ds fo:} vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS A **

¶19

The appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and

¶20

decree aforesaid passed by the Trial Court came to be rejected by the Appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 03.06.2017.

¶21

Mr. Amit Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2017 contended that the Courts below have erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s suit and while doing so, have not considered the material and evidence in its true perspective. He however could not formulate or propose any question of law involved in the present case.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the impugned judgments, this Court finds that there is concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below against the plaintiff – appellant that there is no easementary right of the plaintiff.

¶23

The plaintiff is bound by the adjudication made in case of Ranjeet Singh, his predecessor in title. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court.

¶24

The appeal is rejected.

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶26

Upendra/55

Smt. Devi v. Sanjeev Chaudhary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Devi v. Sanjeev Chaudhary and Anr.

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

Chand Ratan Vs Smt. Satyavati

Uma Devi Vs Viond Kumar

Sapna Vs Bheraram Chavariya

The Minig Engineer, Mines and Anr. Vs Smt. Gayatri Devi and Anr.

Sohan Lal Vs the Mining Engineer, Mines and Ors.

Smt. Deepyanti Vs Praveen Pandit