Dismissed

State of Raj. v. Lrs of Tej Singh

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2021CSA/692/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil second appeal, the second appellate court dismissed the State's appeal against the decreed suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts holding that the plaintiff owned the land and was in possession, finding the objections regarding the patta's validity and the classification of land as Gochar without substa

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no further relief granted.

State of Raj. Vs Lrs of Tej Singh — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 692/2011

¶4

State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Nagaur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

LRs of Tej Singh S/o Sajjan Singh, Resident of Khinwsar, District Nagaur.

¶8

1/1. Gulab Kanwar Widow of Tej Singh Rajput.

¶9

1/2. Rewant Singh S/o Tej Singh Rajput Both residents of Khinwsar, District Nagaur.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit. Mr. Harshit Bhurani. For Respondent(s) : Mr. TRS Sodha.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI J u d g m e n t

¶13

19/08/2021

¶14

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2001 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaur (‘the trial court’) and judgment and decree dated 16.12.2003 passed by Addl. District Judge, Nagaur (‘the appellate court’), whereby, the suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction has been decreed and appeal filed by the State has been dismissed, respectively.

¶15

The suit was filed by the plaintiff inter alia with the averments that land (500 x 500 ft.) situated in khasra no.291 ad-measuring 55.12 bigha was given by way of patta in 1952 by one Onkar Singh erstwhile Jagirdar to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.31/- and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. The same was being used for keeping livestock. The boundaries the the said plot were also indicated in the plaint.

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CSA-692/2011]

¶18

It was averred that the officers of the Settlement

¶19

Department instead of recording khasra no.233 as Gochar, indicated the plaintiff’s land as Gochar, whereas, the same should have been recorded as belonging to the plaintiff. It was submitted that for lack of entry in the records, the plaintiff has not been permitted to raise the construction. Notice was issued to the State under Section 80 CPC, however, they have refused to recognize the plaintiff as owner of the land. Based on the said submissions, relief of declaration and permanent injunction was sought.

¶20

Written statement was filed by the defendant – State and its officers inter alia indicating that no such plot given by the then Jagirdar, is situated at Jodhpur - Nagaur road, the land is Gochar and as such, the same has been rightly recorded, the plaintiff is not in possession. In special pleas, it was indicated that the plaintiff was seeking to trespass over the land and as such, the suit be dismissed.

¶21

Based on the averments made by the parties, the trial court framed six issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, four witnesses were examined and nine documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined and three documents were exhibited.

¶22

After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the land in question was owned by the then Jagirdar and that patta (Exhibit-4) was issued to the plaintiff on 30.9.1952 and that even if the land in question has been recorded as Gochar, the ownership of the plaintiff was not affected.

¶23

Issue no.2 to 5 were decided together and by indicating that as the plaintiff is in possession of the land and title is in his favour,

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[CSA-692/2011]

¶26

the defendants were not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

¶27

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – State filed first appeal.

¶28

The first appellate court by its impugned judgment thoroughly reconsidered the evidence available on record and came to a similar conclusion as arrived at by the trial court and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the State.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions that the judgments impugned passed by the two courts below cannot be sustained. Submissions were made that witness PW/2 – Jugal Kishore appeared in the witness box to prove the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff, however, he was not even born on the date the patta was issued and, therefore, his evidence could not have been believed. It is submitted that patta issued in favour of the plaintiff is apparently forged.

¶30

Further submissions were made that as the land in question was Gair Mumkin Gochar , the plaintiff had no right over the said land and as such, the judgments impugned passed by the two courts below give rise to substantial questions of law.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments impugned. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the two courts below are findings of fact. It was further emphasized that the allegations about the patta being forged are baseless and during course of submissions learned counsel has placed on record a photocopy of certified copy of the patta obtained from the State Archives, Jaipur and the certified copy also has been produced for perusal of the Court. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

¶32

(4 of 5)

¶33

[CSA-692/2011]

¶34

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record as well as record of the trial court.

¶35

The plaintiff filed the suit based on the patta having been issued in his favour seeking declaration of his title over the plot of land. The State raised two issues disputing the genuineness of the patta and relying on the fact that land was recorded during settlement as Gair Mumkin Gochar.

¶36

Both the courts below thoroughly by scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence, which came on record, has recorded concurrent finding that the land in question was owned by the plaintiff.

¶37

The submissions made seeking to question the statement of PW/2 – Jugal Kishore based on the fact that he was not born when the patta was issued, was negated by the first appellate court based on his statement, wherein, he has indicated that he had worked with the person, who had issued the patta for over 15 years and in fact has proved his signatures and not the fact that the patta was issued in his presence and in view thereof, the submissions made based on the fact that PW/2 – Jugal Kishore was not born when the patta was issued, apparently had no substance. The reasoning of the appellate court can’t be faulted.

¶38

The submissions made seeking to question the finding related to validity of patta also apparently has no substance specially in view of the fact that learned counsel for the respondents has produced a certified copy of the same patta issued by the State Archives. In view thereof, the plea sought to be raised seeking to question the validity of the patta also apparently has no substance.

¶39

(5 of 5)

¶40

[CSA-692/2011]

¶41

So far as the plea regarding recording of the land as Gochar is concerned, admittedly the patta was issued prior to the settlement and as such in the settlement even if the land has been recorded as Gair Mumkin Gochar, ignoring the patta and/or possession of the plaintiff, the same was of no avail.

¶42

In view of the above fact situation, the concurrent judgments of both the courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶43

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶44

31-Sumit/-

State of Raj. v. Lrs of Tej Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. v. Lrs of Tej Singh

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

Dilip Ram Vs Sandeep Kumar

Madhu Sharma Vs Vinod Sharma

Parbat Singh Vs Ashok Sindhi

Balu Vs Ejan

Smt.Mamta Devi and Ors. Vs Rajesh Choudhary and Ors.

Zaid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan