In this second appeal, appellants challenged a stay order protecting a respondent's land rights under a valid government 'patta'. The High Court rejected the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' conclusion that the respondent must enjoy rights flowing from the document while its validity is intact.
The second appeal was rejected.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 90 / 2017
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal _____________________________________________________ JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order
05/05/2018
The present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajgarh, District Churu has been affirmed.
The facts needful for the purpose of present appeal are that
(2 of 3)
[CSA-90/2017]
the plaintiff – respondent No.1 herein, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant – appellant inter alia contending that he is having a ‘ patta’ No.90, which was granted to him, pursuant to a 20 point programme of the Government. It was alleged that the defendants (present appellants) are restraining him from raising construction on such land.
Pursuant to the suit so filed by the plaintiff, (respondent No.1), the defendant(appellant herein) filed a written statement and contended that the ‘patta’ No.90 dated 30.07.1987 issued in plaintiff’s favour for 150 sq. yard of land had been issued in back date and the same was illegally granted to him.
Learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiff is having a valid ‘patta’ in his favour; as such untill and unless the same is quashed and set aside by the Competent Court, he is legally entitled to enjoy the rights flowing therefrom. Hence, the Trial Court by way of judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010, restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession and ensuing construction raised by the plaintiff.
The appellants – defendants challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010 by way of filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was registered as appeal decree No.06/2010 and the same came to be rejected by the appellate court, vide order dated 25.11.2016 almost with the identical analogy and reasoning.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the ‘ patta’ No.90 granted in favour of the plaintiff, is the subject matter of
(3 of 3)
[CSA-90/2017]
the challenge before the Competent Revenue Authority and if the plaintiff is allowed to carry on construction, the entire purpose of challenging the ‘patta’ shall be defeated. He further submitted that grant of 59 ‘patta’ out of small area of land, admeasuring 12 biswa is impractical and impossible.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.
Having gone through the findings of the courts below, this Court does not see any error of law or of facts in the orders impugned. This Court concurs with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below that as long as a validily issued ‘patta’ in plaintiffs’ favour is intact and not turned down by a Competent Statutory Authority, the plaintiffs cannot be deprived of the rights flowing from such ‘patta’.
This Court is rather surprised to find the present appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree impugned. Any interference at appellants’ instance or indulgence in the present appeal would mean that the appellants would be given license to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and title duly conferred vide a ‘patta.
There is neither any substance in the appeal nor does it involve any question of law, much less substantial question of law.
The appeal is therefore, rejected.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
Himanshu/- 42
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any error of law or fact in the lower courts' finding that the plaintiff holds a valid title to the land via a 'patta'.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sohan Singh
Tejapal Singh
Dinesh Singh
Suresh Singh
Jaipal Singh
Ram Singh
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
