Dismissed

Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/O Raj Kumar v. Mahaveer Prasad S/O Bansidhar

Rajasthan HC8 Jul 2022CSA/145/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 145/2022, the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur dismissed a second appeal filed against a judgment partly favoring the appellant-plaintiff. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the impugned findings were factual in nature and not perverse, barring interference under Section 100 CPC. The injunction against the Municipal Corporation was im

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of fact not disturbed; stay application disposed of.

Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/O Raj Kumar Vs Mahaveer Prasad… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 145/2022

¶3

Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/o Raj Kumar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 16 Khetri, Tehisl Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Appellant-Plaintiff

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mahaveer Prasad S/o Bansidhar, Resident Of Ward No. 16 Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶7

Vimla Devi W/o Mohan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 16 Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶8

Suresh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 16 Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶9

Harphool S/o Bansidhar, Resident Of Ward No. 16 Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶10

Harish Kumar S/o Babu Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 16 Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶11

Municipal Corporation Khetri, Through Executive Officer Municipal Corporation Khetri Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶12

Chairman Municipal Corporation Khetri, Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶13

Raghuveer Singh S/o Ram Prasad Yadav, R/o Ram Cement Store, Near Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, Tehsil Buhana Distt. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶17

Order

¶18

08/07/2022

¶19

Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2022 passed by Additional District Judge,

¶20

(2 of 4) [CSA-145/2022]

¶21

Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Civil Regular First Appeal No.24/2016 whereby and whereunder appeal has partly been allowed and judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No.39/2012 instituted by appellant-plaintiff has been modified and finally the following decree has been passed in favour of appellant-plaintiff and against private respondent-defendant Nos.1 to 5:-

¶22

ा . 1 लगायत 4 "परिणामतः वादिया का वाि ववरुद्ध प्रवतवाितिवादीगण गण सीगण सं सायतिवादी व निषिषेधाजा व आजापक आििषेश देश सतिवादीकाि वकया किय ा जकि इगण सकिि मय खर मय खरद द डिकिक्री वकया किय ा जता ा हता हैकिक्री प्रवतवाितिवादीगण गण सीगण सं ा 1 लगायत 4 दािा वादिया किषे आधधपत्य किषे मका नि किषे िधदक्षिण किक्री औि र त तित तथा प्रवतवाितिवादीगण गण साीगण सं 1 गण सिषे 4 किषे उत्ति किक्री औि र त खालतिवादी ी भ ली भूम ममि मेंप्रवतवाितिवादीगण दािा डिालिषे गए पत्थि, ब क ि या जतिवादी व इट को देश सयीगण संकिषे खर मय ख रकिषे ा हटायिषे तित तथा उक्त ी भ ली भूम पि कोई अवतकमण निा हक्रमण नहींकििषे। प्रवतवाितिवादीगण गण सीगण सं ा 5 व 6 किषे ववरुद्ध पत्तिषे किक्री ा हि तक िाििगण सतिवादी खारि किया जवकया किय ा जता ा हता हैवकन्तु या हवतिवादी व न ि खर्चेश दिया किय ा जता ा हता है किक्री पटटिषे या व निमदण किक्री अ नितुमवत ििषे न गण सिषेपली भूव्व ी भ ली भूम किक्री र त किषे गण सम्बन्ध ममि मेंिो नि में दोनोंपदक्षि में दोनोंकिषे गण सतुखाधधकाि किषे गण सम्बन्ध ममि मेंववर मय खराि कि न किषे उपिाीगण संत ा हतिवादी पटटा व अ नितुमवत किय ि ा जितिवादी कििषे। द डिकिक्री पिर मय खरा व नियम नितुगण साि म त ब वकया किय ा जए। "

¶23

Heard counsel for appellant and perused the record.

¶24

It appears from the record that appellant-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction claiming that adjoining to his plot a disputed plot is situated and in disputed plot, windows and ventilation of plaintiff are opening. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have raised some encroachment by putting stones and raw construction material and wants to encroach thereupon. Therefore, private respondent-defendants be restrained not to made any encroachment over the subject plot and the stones, raw building material lying in subject plot be removed. Plaintiff also prayed that private respondent-defendants are inclined to get issued patta of the subject plot from Municipal Corporation, Kehtri. Hence, Municipal Corporation, Khetri be restrained not to issue

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CSA-145/2022]

¶27

any patta. Both Courts on appreciation of pleadings and evidence have held that plot in question is an open plot on which appellantplaintiff's windows and ventilation are open. The impugned decree has already been passed in favour of appellant-plaintiff, with direction against private respondent-defendants in mandatory form as well to remove the raw construction material and other things laying on the plot.

¶28

As far as, the claim of plaintiff to get injunction against Municipal Corporation, Khetri has been declined, this Court finds that no such injunction can be passed on askings and anticipation that Government would issue a patta. Such nature of injunction is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Thus, Appellate Court is well within its jurisdiction and parameters of law to decline two injunctions qua the Municipal Corporation, Khetri. However, the injunction in permanent and mandatory form has already been passed in favour of appellant-plaintiff and against private respondent-defendants. Hence, this Court finds that no substantial question of law in that backdrop of facts arise in this second appeal and no interference is required to be made out in the fact findings recorded by the Court below.

¶29

The findings recorded by two Courts below are findings of fact and do not give rise to formulation of any substantial question of law. In absence of involvement of any substantial question of law, the second appeal cannot be entertained for exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellant-plaintiff are essentially questions of fact, which requires reappreciation of evidence. Reappreciation of evidence is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 of

¶30

(4 of 4) [CSA-145/2022]

¶31

CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in findings. None of the question of law, falls within purview of substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Otherwise also, it is a case of concurrent findings of facts, which even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC as has been held in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981) 2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC 434], State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595] and C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy and Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 659]. Since no substantial questions of law are involved in present appeal thus, same is not liable to be entertained.

¶32

Accordingly, the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶33

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

¶34

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶35

NITIN /26

Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/O Raj Kumar v. Mahaveer Prasad S/O Bansidhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/O Raj Kumar v. Mahaveer Prasad S/O Bansidhar

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

Harvilas Vs Kailash Chand

Rakshpal Singh S/O Shri Berisal Singh Charan Vs Kalyan Singh S/O Shri Murardan

Prabhu Dayal Agrawal S/O Sedmal Agrawal. Vs Smt. Meena Kumari D/O Pannaram Gera

Shanti Lal Agarwal Vs the Municipal Board

Ghanshyam Dani S/O Late Sh. Mohan Lal Vs Government of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh S/O Shri Mangej Singh Vs Devi Singh S/O Shri Ramjeevan