Dismissed

Nainga Thr Lrs and Ors. v. Ramchandra Thr Lrs and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2022CSA/196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. The Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit because no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings of fact made by courts below regarding the land not being a public chowk.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; stay application disposed of.

Nainga Thr Lrs and Ors. Vs Ramchandra Thr Lrs and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

एस . बी . ससविल द् वि तीय अपील स . 196 /2017

¶3

नैनगा पुत्र ग गौरी श कर जररयिये कायम मुक़ामान ि

¶4

1/1. रामनाथी बाई ब ि येा नैनगा, कलाल उम्र 92 साल

¶5

¶6

1/2. बाबूलाल पुत्र स्वगस्वर्गीय नैनगा, कलाल उम्र 65 साल

¶7

1/3. शशशुपाल ससंह पुत्र स्वगस्वर्गीय नैनगा, कलाल उम्र 68 साल ि

¶8

1/4. कैलाश बाई पती द ि येकरण पारियेता, कलाल उम्र 60 साल

¶9

¶10

1/5. का ता बाई पती राम वनिास पारियेता, कलाल उम्र 58 साल

¶11

वनिासीगण नायपुरा, लाखेियेरी जिजला बू दी ।

¶12

शशशुपाल ससंह पुत्र नैनगा, कलाल उम्र 68 साल

¶13

मुहम्मद हुसैन पुत्र सु सुभान, मुसलमान उम्र 50 साल

¶14

वनिासीगण नायपुरा, लाखेियेरी जिजला बू दी ।

¶15

----अपीलान- िादीगण

¶16

बनाम

¶17

रामच द्र पुत्र द ि येी राम जररयिये कायम मुक़ामान मन मृतक ि

¶18

¶19

1/1. मोहनी बाई ब ि येा राम च द्र, उम्र 62 साल

¶20

¶21

1/2. नरियेश कुमार पुत्र राम च द्। उम्र 45 साल

¶22

1/3. धम्मेंद्र पुत्र राम च द्र, उम्र 35 साल

¶23

1/4. मुनीश्वर पुत्र स्वगस्वर्गीय राम च द्र, उम्र 43 साल

¶24

1/5. तियेजस्वी पुत्र स्वगस्वर्गीय राम च द्र, उम्र 37 साल

¶25

वनिासीगण नायपुरा, लाखेियेरी जिजला बू दी । य

¶26

नगर पाललका लाखेियेरी जररयिये चि य ेरमैन, नगर पाललका, लाखेियेरी, जिजला बू दी

¶27

¶28

1. असधशासी असधकारी, नगर पाललका, लाखेियेरी, जिजला बू दी ।

¶29

----रियेस्पोंंडोंडेंट -प्रवतिादीगण

¶30

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Zeeshan Khan For Respondent(s) :

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶32

Order

¶33

04/07/2022

¶34

Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under

¶35

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 passed by District Judge, Bundi in appeal No.40/2011, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lakheri, Bundi

¶36

(2 of 5) [CSA-196/2017]

¶37

in Civil Suit No.33/94 whereby appellants-plaintiffs' suit for

¶38

permanent and mandatory injunction in relation to land alleged to be of public chowk and public way has been dismissed on merits.

¶39

Heard counsel for appellants and perused the record.

¶40

It appears from record that appellants-plaintiffs instituted a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction alleging inter alia that suit

¶41

property described in para 1 of the plaint marked as अ.ब.स.द in the map situated at Kasba Nayapura, Lakheri, District Bundi is a

¶42

public chowk and its part marked क.खे.ग.घ has been encroached upon by respondents- private defendants. Hence, prayer was made to the following effect:-

¶43

"अतः प्राथार्थना है कै की िादीगण किये पक्ष मोंडें प्रवतिादीगण किये विरुद्ध वनम आशय कै की दंडकै की फ़रमाई जाििये कै की - "सािार्थजवनक च गौक किये क.खे.ग.घ हहसिये पर वकयिये गए वनमिर्माण कायार्थ, नीििये तथा दीिार्पों को प्रवतिादीगण किये खेच्चे सिये तुड़िाया जाए, यदद प्रवतिादीगण सिये ददलाया जाििये वििादीन च गौक किये वकसी सुभी हहसिये पर सुभविष्य मोंडें अवतकमण न करनिये िादीगण को आिागमन सािार्थजवनक उपयोग मोंडें अिरोध पैदा न करनिये तथा वबजली ि टियेलीफोन कै की लाइन्पों को शती नहहीं पहु चनिये हियेतु प्रवत स .1 को स्ायी वनषियेधाजा किये पाब ध वकया जाििये और न ही ऐसा पानिये प्रवतवनसधय्पों किये करिाए तथा प्रवतिादी नगर पाललका उसमिये प्रवत स .1 का कोई सहयोग नहहीं करिये।"

¶44

On the basis of pleadings and evidence on record, both Court have recorded fact findings that plaintiffs could not prove by oral or documentary evidence that the suit property marked as

¶45

अ.ब.स.द is a land of public chowk. Plaintiffs have not asked for

¶46

any relief of declaration to declare the suit property as public

¶47

(3 of 5)

¶48

[CSA-196/2017]

¶49

chowk. It has come on record that property marked as क.खे.ग.घ, is adjoining to defendants' house and the Nagar Palika, Lakheri has allotted that part of land treating as strip of land, to defendants after receiving an amount of Rs.16,473.70/-. It has come on record that this part is not obstructing the common way and same is land of Nagar Palika, Lakheri. Plaintiff and his witnesses have also admitted in their statements that the land in question belongs to Nagar Palika.

¶50

In that view of such facts, both Courts observed that plaintiffs simpliciter suit for permanent injunction is not liable to be succeed and accordingly suit has been dismissed on merits. 6. Counsel for appellants vehemently argued that receipt of Rs.16,473.70/- (Exhibit-A2) nowhere goes to show that a strip of land has been allotted by Nagar Palika, Bundi to private defendants. Hence, two Courts below have committed perversity in recording findings that the land in question has been allotted as strip of land within the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rule, 1974. 7. From the record, it stand clear that there is no documentary evidence to show that the suit property is a public chowk. No documents either of registration of Nagar Palika or other proof have been placed on record by plaintiffs in support of their case to prove the suit land to be a part of public chowk. Plaintiffs have not filed any suit for declaration, seeking declaration of suit property as part of public chowk by virtue of its use. Thus, it a case where plaintiffs' evidence fall short to prove his case and argument raised by counsel for appellant is not sustainable in that backdrop

¶51

(4 of 5)

¶52

[CSA-196/2017]

¶53

of circumstances. The fact findings recorded by both Courts below that suit land is not prove to be a part of public chowk or public way is passed on appreciation of evidence on record which has not been pointed out to be suffered from any perversity or misreading/non-reading of evidence.

¶54

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 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

¶55

(5 of 5)

¶56

[CSA-196/2017]

¶57

C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy and

¶58

Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 659]. Since no substantial questions of law are involved in present appeal thus, same is not liable to be entertained.

¶59