Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. Mohan Chand

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2022CSA/133/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal under Section 100 CPC against a dismissal of a permanent injunction suit was dismissed. The High Court upheld concurrent fact findings of the lower courts holding that the appellant failed to prove ownership and possession of the disputed land. No substantial question of law arose to warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Mohan Chand — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 133/2017

¶3

Rajesh Kumar S/o Vishambhar Dayal, R/o Bayana, TehsilBayana, District Bharatpur Raj.

¶4

----Appellant/Plaintiff

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mohan Chand S/o Patiram, R/o Subhash Chauk, Bayana, TehsilBayana, District Bharatpur Raj.

¶7

----Respondent/Defendant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal For Respondent(s) :

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶9

Judgment

¶10

14/11/2022

¶11

Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2016 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.06/2007 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bayana, District Bharatpur, affirming the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.53/1998 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bayana, District Bharatpur, whereby and whereunder his civil suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed on merits.

¶12

Having heard counsel for appellant and on perusal of record, it transpires that both courts below have concurrently recorded a fact finding that plaintiff himself has admitted that his house is constructed over an area of 276 Sq. yards. Admittedly, plaintiff purchased land out of Khasra No.1268 situated at Town Bayana,

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CSA-133/2017]

¶15

vide two sale deeds dated 20.07.1988 and 03.04.1989 and total measurement of both sale deeds is 276 Sq. yards. Both courts have held that plaintiff could not prove any vacant land of his own, on which he is claiming permanent injunction against defendant. With such fact finding, where plaintiff remained miserably failed to identify the disputed land as well as could not show his ownership and possession, two courts below have declined to grant decree for permanent injunction.

¶16

Counsel for appellant has argued that defendant claimed that the disputed land is part of Khasra No.1251 and which is in possession of defendant, for which issue No.12 was specifically framed, but this issue has been held against the defendant, therefore, defendant also could not prove his right and possession over the disputed land.

¶17

This Court is of opinion that plaintiff has to prove his own case by his own evidence and once he could not show that disputed land of his own ownership and possession nor could lead evidence to identify the disputed land, rather the land purchased by plaintiff through registered sale deeds dated 20.07.1988 and 03.04.1989 are admittedly in his possession and other than disputed land, therefore, plaintiff cannot take any benefit of deciding issue No.12 against defendant.

¶18

It is a trite law that concurrent fact findings which are based on evidence and do not suffer from perversity or misreading/nonreading of evidence, are not required to be interfered with by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The findings of fact are neither can be said to be dehors to the pleadings of plaint nor are based on surmises and conjectures nor

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[CSA-133/2017]

¶21

are against the settled proposition of law, therefore, do not give rise to any substantial question of law.

¶22

In case of C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy and ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

¶23

In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned judgments, there is no force in the second appeal as no substantial question of law arises in the matter, hence the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶24

Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶25

Record of courts below be sent back.

¶26

SACHIN/85

Rajesh Kumar v. Mohan Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Mohan Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sube Singh and Others Vs Thawar Ram and Others

Mukraj S/O Shri Ramkesh , Vs Smt. Geeta Bai Meena W/O Shri Mukraj, D/O Vishram Meena

Shri Imamuddin Shaikh Vs Smt Rehmat Bano and Ors.

Chhitar Vs Meenawala Grah Nirman Saha.Samiti and Ot

Giriraj Vs Mohani Devi

Bhorelal S/O Chetram Vs Ramswaroop S/O Moolchand