Dismissed

Late Sh Chaturbhuj Jakhar through Lrs v. Development Officer P S Peesangan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Dec 2021CSA/214/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appeal. The Court upheld the concurrent finding of courts below that the appellants failed to prove peaceful possession of the suit property, noting the absence of a substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; stay application and pending applications likewise dismissed.

Late Sh Chaturbhuj Jakhar through Lrs Vs Development… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 214/2016

¶3

Shri Chaturbhuj Jakhar S/o late Shri Sawai Ram Jakhar, R/o Mangaliyawas, Distt. Ajmer (since deceased) through LRs:

¶4

1/1. Smt. Anop Devi W/o late Shri Chaturbhuj Jakhar,

¶5

1/2. Smt. Rami Devi D/o late Shri Chaturbhuj Jakhar

¶6

1/3. Vishram Jakhar S/o late Shri Chaturbhuj Jakhar

¶7

1/4. Jeewan Ram Jakhar S/o late Shri Chaturbhuj Jakhar

¶8

1/5. Ravi Jat S/o late Shri Chaturbhuj Jakhar

¶9

All R/o Mangaliyawas, Distt. Ajmer

¶10

----Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶11

Versus

¶12

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Peesangan, Distt. Ajmer

¶13

State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Ajmer

¶14

Gram Panchayat Mangaliyawas through Sarpanch Smt. Teeji Bai

¶15

Gram Panchayat Mangaliyawas, Distt. Ajmer

¶16

----Respondents/Defendants

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, Advocate

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment

¶19

13/12/2021

¶20

This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (for short, 'the plaintiffs') against the judgment and decree 6.2.2016 passed by Addl. District Judge No.4, Ajmer (for short, 'the first appellate court') in Civil Appeal No. 110/2014 (123/2014), whereby the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Ajmer, District Ajmer (for short, 'the trial court') in civil Suit No. 82/2003, whereby the suit filed by the original plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[CSA-214/2016]

¶23

Facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short, 'the defendants') in the trial court, wherein it was pleaded that he is in the ownership and possession of a plot admeasuring 60 Ft. from east to west and 39 Ft. X 32 Ft. from north to south, situated near Police Station, Mangliyawas, Distt. Ajmer since the past 47 years, but the defendants by dispossessing the plaintiff want to encroach over the plot in question.

¶24

The defendants put in appearance and filed their written statement. It was averred that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the plot in question. It was also averred that it was no where mentioned as to when and from which date the plaintiff came in ownership and possession of the suit property.

¶25

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed. Evidence was led.

¶26

The trial court vide its judgment dated 14.10.2014 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal before the first appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 6.2.2016. Hence, this second appeal has been filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, but the first appellate court gave a finding contrary to the record that the suit for declaration was not filed. There is sufficient evidence on record to establish the ownership and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the plot in question since the past 47 years. However, the learned courts below have utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter. On this count, the

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

[CSA-214/2016]

¶30

impugned judgments are perverse and based on misreading and non-reading of material evidence. Thus, appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶31

Heard. Considered.

¶32

From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the trial court framed the issue with regard to declaration and the same was decided. So far as the finding of the first appellate court with regard to declaration is concerned, in my considered view, whether the suit for declaration was filed or not, does not go to the root of the matter, but the possession over the suit property is the material aspect, which goes to the root of the matter. It is also evident that there is no evidence to the effect that the plaintiffs were in possession of the plot in question since the past 47 years. The finding of fact recorded by both the courts below with regard to possession over the suit property is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The same is neither perverse nor arbitrary.

¶33

Both the courts below having rightly considered the evidence led by the parties in the suit and there being concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Even otherwise, when there has been a concurrent finding that the plaintiffs were not in possession over the suit property and the counsel for the plaintiffs having failed to point out any question of law much less substantial question of law, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CSA-214/2016]

¶36

Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed accordingly.

¶37

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶38

DILIP KHANDELWAL /1

Late Sh Chaturbhuj Jakhar through Lrs v. Development Officer P S Peesangan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Late Sh Chaturbhuj Jakhar through Lrs v. Development Officer P S Peesangan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khandelwal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforecement

Vinod Bhandari Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Madanlal @ Sonu Son of Shri Kundanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

R F C Jaipur Vs Ram Swaroop

Girraj Prasad and Another Vs Murari Lal through Lrs and Others

Laxman S/O Shri Birdhaji Vs Satyanarayan S/O Shankar Lal