Dismissed

Hardayal v. Municipal Board Hindauncity City

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2022CSA/211/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal because the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, establishing the appellant as a licensee without a valid allotment order, could not be disturbed absent perversity or substantial questions of law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments and decree dated 09.12.2016 and 04.01.2010 dismissed; stay applications disposed.

Hardayal Vs Municipal Board Hindauncity City — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 211/2017

¶3

Hardayal S/o Sitaram Udeiya, R/o Dubbe Pada, Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli

¶4

----Appellant-Plaintiff

¶5

Versus

¶6

Municipal Board, Hindaun City, Through Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli

¶7

----Respondent-Defendant

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas Meena for Mr. Manoj Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jinesh Kumar Jain

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶10

Judgment

¶11

02/11/2022

¶12

The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by appellant-plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 64/2012 (08/10) by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hindaun City (Karauli) whereby and whereunder dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.57/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr. D.) Hindaun City (Karauli) whereby and whereunder while declining the prayer for declaration to issue patta by way of seeking specific performance, the trial court has protected the possession of plaintiff over the shop in question in the manner that the Nagar Palika shall not dispossess the plaintiff without following due process of law.

¶13

From the perusal of both judgments, it appears that both courts below have concurrently recorded a fact finding that the

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CSA-211/2017]

¶16

shop in question bearing Shop No.12 situated at Karauli Road, Hindaun City was given on license to the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff deposited the license fee time to time. On completion of the term of license, the Nagar Nigam vide notice dated 02.09.2006, revoked the license. The plaintiff claimed allotment of the shop in question seeking specific performance of the order dated 02.10.1983, taken by the Nagar Nigam but it has come on record that the plaintiff never deposited any ‘ Nazrana Rashi’ in furtherance to the order dated 02.10.1983 rather, continued to deposit the license fee. On the basis of such factual matrix, it has been held that the plaintiff’s possession over the shop in question was as licensee and the Nagar Nigam shall not dispossess the plaintiff without following the due process of law. The judgments and decree are just and cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or jurisdiction error.

¶17

The counsel for appellant could not point out any perversity on the part of courts below in recording findings which are based on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. In absence of only perversity, or when findings are neither based on surmises and conjunctures nor the same do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Substantial questions of law are sine-qua-non to exercise the jurisdiction of high court under Section 100 of CPC.

¶18

In case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi [(2016)3 SCC

¶19

78], the Apex Court held that even if finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. The safest

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CSA-211/2017]

¶22

approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man’s inference on facts.

¶23

In case of State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal [(2019)8 SCC 637] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on records and documents. The Hon’ble Court held as under:-

¶24

“16. When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose, J. as His Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors., AIR 1943 Nagpur 117 Para 43). ”

¶25

In the case of C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.

¶26

Jayarama Reddy and ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659] , wherein 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.

¶27

(4 of 4) [CSA-211/2017]

¶28

In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by both 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. No Costs

¶29

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

¶30

Record be sent back forthwith.

¶31

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶32

TN/90

Hardayal v. Municipal Board Hindauncity City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardayal v. Municipal Board Hindauncity City

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

Jaafar and Others Vs Raisuddin through Lrs and Others

Nihal Chand Son of Shri Devi Singh Mahajan, Vs Prem Kishan Son of Shri Kishan

Manju Meena D/O Shri Gopal Lal Meena W/O Shri Deepak Meena Vs Deepak Meena S/O Shri Ramesh Chand Meena

Shanti Lal Jain Vs Raj State Bhatat Scout and Guide and Oth

Mohan Lal Vs Anandi Bai

Moolchand Vs Smt Krishna Sharma and Anr.